Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Oct;8(10):589-97.
doi: 10.1002/jhm.2082.

Provider-to-provider electronic communication in the era of meaningful use: a review of the evidence

Affiliations
Review

Provider-to-provider electronic communication in the era of meaningful use: a review of the evidence

Colin Walsh et al. J Hosp Med. 2013 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Electronic communication between providers occurs daily in clinical practice but has not been well studied.

Purpose: To assess the impact of provider-to-provider electronic communication tools on communication and healthcare outcomes through literature review.

Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Academic Search Premier.

Study selection: Publication in English-language peer-reviewed journals. Studies provided quantitative provider-to-provider communication data, provider satisfaction statistics, or electronic health record (EHR) communication data.

Data extraction: Literature review.

Data synthesis: Two reviewers conducted the title review to determine eligible studies from initial search results. Three reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full text (where appropriate) against inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Limitations: Small number of eligible studies; few described trial design (20%). Homogeneous provider type (physicians). English-only studies.

Conclusions: Of 25 included studies, all focused on physicians; most were observational (68%). Most (60%) described electronic specialist referral tools. Although overall use has been measured, there were no studies of the effectiveness of intra-EHR messaging. Literature describing the effectiveness of provider-to-provider electronic communications is sparse and narrow in scope. Complex care, such as that envisioned for the Patient Centered Medical Home, necessitates further research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Potential Conflict(s) of Interest: Dr. Stetson serves on the advisory board of the Allscripts Enterprise EHR

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Literature Flow Diagram

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Dunn AS, Markoff B. Physician-physician communication: what's the hang-up? J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:437–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Foy R, Hempel S, Rubenstein L, Suttorp M, Seelig M, Shanman R, et al. Meta-analysis: Effect of Interactive Communication Between Collaborating Primary Care Physicians and Specialists. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(4):247–58. Epub 2010/02/17. - PubMed
    1. O'Malley AS, Grossman JM, Cohen GR, Kemper NM, Pham HH. Are Electronic Medical Records Helpful for Care Coordination? Experiences of Physician Practices. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;25:177–85. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stetson PD, McKnight LK, Bakken S, Curran C, Kubose TT, Cimino JJ. Development of an ontology to model medical errors, information needs, and the clinical communication space/ Proceedings / AMIA Annual SymposiumAMIA Symposium. 2001:672–6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Coiera E. Clinical communication: a new informatics paradigm. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1996:17–21. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms