Survey of electronic veterinary medical record adoption and use by independent small animal veterinary medical practices in Massachusetts.

OBJECTIVE To estimate the proportion of independent small animal veterinary medical practices in Massachusetts that use electronic veterinary medical records (EVMRs), determine the purposes for which EVMRs are used, and identify perceived barriers to their use. DESIGN Survey. SAMPLE 100 veterinarians. PROCEDURES 213 of 517 independent small animal veterinary practices operating in Massachusetts were randomly chosen for study recruitment. One veterinarian at each practice was invited by telephone to answer a hardcopy survey regarding practice demographics, medical records type (electronic, paper, or both), purposes of EVMR use, and perceived barriers to adoption. Surveys were mailed to the first 100 veterinarians who agreed to participate. Practices were categorized by record type and size (large [≥ 5 veterinarians], medium [3 to 4 veterinarians], or small [1 to 2 veterinarians]). RESULTS 84 surveys were returned; overall response was 84 of 213 (39.4%). The EVMRs were used alone or together with paper records in 66 of 82 (80.5%) practices. Large and medium-sized practices were significantly more likely to use EVMRs combined with paper records than were small practices. The EVMRs were most commonly used for ensuring billing, automating reminders, providing cost estimates, scheduling, recording medical and surgical information, and tracking patient health. Least common uses were identifying emerging infectious diseases, research, and insurance. Eleven veterinarians in paper record-only practices indicated reluctance to change, anticipated technological problems, time constraints, and cost were barriers to EVMR use. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated EVMRs were underutilized as a tool for tracking and improving population health and identifying emerging infectious diseases. Efforts to facilitate adoption of EVMRs for these purposes should be strengthened by the veterinary medical, human health, and public health professions.

[1]  E. Hing,et al.  Use and characteristics of electronic health record systems among office-based physician practices: United States, 2001-2012. , 2012, NCHS data brief.

[2]  Peter G. Goldschmidt,et al.  HIT and MIS , 2005, Commun. ACM.

[3]  D. Aucoin,et al.  Purdue University-Banfield National Companion Animal Surveillance Program for emerging and zoonotic diseases. , 2006, Vector borne and zoonotic diseases.

[4]  J. Corrigan,et al.  COMMITTEE ON DATA STANDARDS FOR PATIENT SAFETY , 2004 .

[5]  T. Kuiken,et al.  Surveillance of Zoonotic Infectious Disease Transmitted by Small Companion Animals , 2012, Emerging Infectious Diseases.

[6]  Silvana Castano,et al.  The O3-Vet project: A veterinary electronic patient record based on the web technology and the ADT-IHE actor for veterinary hospitals , 2007, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[7]  J. McCullough,et al.  The effect of health information technology on quality in U.S. hospitals. , 2010, Health affairs.

[8]  Steve Warren,et al.  An Integrated Cattle Health Monitoring System , 2006, 2006 International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[9]  Kate E. Jones,et al.  Global trends in emerging infectious diseases , 2008, Nature.

[10]  H. D. McCurdy.  The paperless practice. , 2001, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[11]  Minal Thakkar,et al.  Risks, barriers, and benefits of EHR systems: a comparative study based on size of hospital. , 2006, Perspectives in health information management.

[12]  Steven R. Simon,et al.  Correlates of Electronic Health Record Adoption in Office Practices: A Statewide Survey , 2006, AMIA.

[13]  Kurt L Zimmerman,et al.  Uses of informatics to solve real world problems in veterinary medicine. , 2011, Journal of veterinary medical education.

[14]  Mark E.J. Woolhouse,et al.  Host Range and Emerging and Reemerging Pathogens , 2005, Emerging infectious diseases.

[15]  M E Woolhouse,et al.  Risk factors for human disease emergence. , 2001, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[16]  M. Kulldorff,et al.  A space–time cluster of adverse events associated with canine rabies vaccine , 2005, Vaccine.

[17]  D. Woodwell,et al.  Physician adoption of electronic health record systems: United States, 2011. , 2012, NCHS data brief.

[18]  D. Ballance,et al.  Introduction to DICOM for the practicing veterinarian. , 2008, Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association.

[19]  E. Hing,et al.  Use and characteristics of electronic health record systems among office-based physician practices: United States, 2001-2013. , 2014, NCHS data brief.

[20]  MS Stephanie O. Zandieh MD,et al.  Challenges to EHR Implementation in Electronic- Versus Paper-based Office Practices , 2008, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[21]  S. Martin,et al.  Quality of computerized medical record abstract data at a veterinary teaching hospital , 1996 .

[22]  T. Bernardo,et al.  Progress in the capture, manipulation, and delivery of medical media and its impact on education, clinical care, and research. , 2005, Journal of veterinary medical education.

[23]  Nancy M. Lorenzi,et al.  How to successfully select and implement electronic health records (EHR) in small ambulatory practice settings , 2009, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[24]  Elmer V. Bernstam,et al.  Toward a veterinary informatics research agenda: An analysis of the PubMed-indexed literature , 2007, Int. J. Medical Informatics.