368 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20150441)
41. EHR implementation adversely affects performance on process quality measures in a community health center.
Huntington MK; Shafer CW
Am J Med Qual; 2010; 25(5):404-5. PubMed ID: 20833986
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
42. Implementation of the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative at a university comprehensive cancer center.
Blayney DW; McNiff K; Hanauer D; Miela G; Markstrom D; Neuss M
J Clin Oncol; 2009 Aug; 27(23):3802-7. PubMed ID: 19487377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. American College of Rheumatology quality indicators for rheumatoid arthritis: benchmarking, variability, and opportunities to improve quality of care using the electronic health record.
Adhikesavan LG; Newman ED; Diehl MP; Wood GC; Bili A
Arthritis Rheum; 2008 Dec; 59(12):1705-12. PubMed ID: 19035412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. How good are the data? Feasible approach to validation of metrics of quality derived from an outpatient electronic health record.
Benin AL; Fenick A; Herrin J; Vitkauskas G; Chen J; Brandt C
Am J Med Qual; 2011; 26(6):441-51. PubMed ID: 21926280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Technological trends in health care: electronic health record.
Abraham S
Health Care Manag (Frederick); 2010; 29(4):318-23. PubMed ID: 21045583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Electronic health record use and the quality of ambulatory care in the United States.
Linder JA; Ma J; Bates DW; Middleton B; Stafford RS
Arch Intern Med; 2007 Jul; 167(13):1400-5. PubMed ID: 17620534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Data used to improve quality of health care.
Bing M; Abel RL; Pendergrass P; Sabharwal K; McCauley C
Tex Med; 2000 Oct; 96(10):75-9. PubMed ID: 11070739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Measuring Diabetes Care Performance Using Electronic Health Record Data: The Impact of Diabetes Definitions on Performance Measure Outcomes.
Hirsch AG; Scheck McAlearney A
Am J Med Qual; 2014; 29(4):292-9. PubMed ID: 24006028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Data Quality in Electronic Health Records Research: Quality Domains and Assessment Methods.
Feder SL
West J Nurs Res; 2018 May; 40(5):753-766. PubMed ID: 28322657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Formal specification of an ontology-based service for EHR interoperability.
González C; Blobel BG; López DM
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2012; 180():78-82. PubMed ID: 22874156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Variation in outcomes of quality measurement by data source.
Angier H; Gold R; Gallia C; Casciato A; Tillotson CJ; Marino M; Mangione-Smith R; DeVoe JE
Pediatrics; 2014 Jun; 133(6):e1676-82. PubMed ID: 24864178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Assessment of electronic health information system use and need in US adult congenital heart disease centers.
Weiss JB; Grant A; Marelli A; Khairy P; Maurais T; Rehel S; Chetaille P; Broberg CS
Congenit Heart Dis; 2011; 6(2):134-8. PubMed ID: 21418535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Evaluation of a clinical simulation-based assessment method for EHR-platforms.
Jensen S; Rasmussen SL; Lyng KM
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2014; 205():925-9. PubMed ID: 25160323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Validating electronic cancer quality measures at Veterans Health Administration.
Shelton JB; Skolarus TA; Ordin D; Malin J; Antonio A; Ryoo J; Saigal CS
Am J Manag Care; 2014; 20(12):1041-7. PubMed ID: 25526392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Nursing Student Experiences Regarding Safe Use of Electronic Health Records: A Pilot Study of the Safety and Assurance Factors for EHR Resilience Guides.
Whitt KJ; Eden L; Merrill KC; Hughes M
Comput Inform Nurs; 2017 Jan; 35(1):45-53. PubMed ID: 27575967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Organizing data quality assessment of shifting biomedical data.
Sáez C; Martínez-Miranda J; Robles M; García-Gómez JM
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2012; 180():721-5. PubMed ID: 22874286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. The reproducibility of CLIF, a method for clinical quality indicator formalisation.
Dentler K; Cornet R; Ten Teije A; Tytgat K; Klinkenbujl J; De Keizer N
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2012; 180():113-7. PubMed ID: 22874163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. The feasibility and accuracy of evaluating lipid management performance metrics using an electronic health record.
Danford CP; Navar-Boggan AM; Stafford J; McCarver C; Peterson ED; Wang TY
Am Heart J; 2013 Oct; 166(4):701-8. PubMed ID: 24093850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Making electronic health records support quality management: A narrative review.
Triantafillou P
Int J Med Inform; 2017 Aug; 104():105-119. PubMed ID: 28599812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Exceptions to outpatient quality measures for coronary artery disease in electronic health records.
Kmetik KS; O'Toole MF; Bossley H; Brutico CA; Fischer G; Grund SL; Gulotta BM; Hennessey M; Kahn S; Murphy KM; Pacheco T; Pawlson LG; Schaeffer J; Schwamberger PA; Scholle SH; Wozniak G
Ann Intern Med; 2011 Feb; 154(4):227-34. PubMed ID: 21320938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
