Use of Epic Electronic Health Record System for Health Care Research: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) enable health data exchange across interconnected systems from varied settings. Epic is among the 5 leading EHR providers and is the most adopted EHR system across the globe. Despite its global reach, there is a gap in the literature detailing how EHR systems such as Epic have been used for health care research. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to synthesize the available literature on use cases of the Epic EHR for research in various areas of clinical and health sciences. METHODS: We used established scoping review methods and searched 9 major information repositories, including databases and gray literature sources. To categorize the research data, we developed detailed criteria for 5 major research domains to present the results. RESULTS: We present a comprehensive picture of the method types in 5 research domains. A total of 4669 articles were screened by 2 independent reviewers at each stage, while 206 articles were abstracted. Most studies were from the United States, with a sharp increase in volume from the year 2015 onwards. Most articles focused on clinical care, health services research and clinical decision support. Among research designs, most studies used longitudinal designs, followed by interventional studies implemented at single sites in adult populations. Important facilitators and barriers to the use of Epic and EHRs in general were identified. Important lessons to the use of Epic and other EHRs for research purposes were also synthesized. CONCLUSIONS: The Epic EHR provides a wide variety of functions that are helpful toward research in several domains, including clinical and population health, quality improvement, and the development of clinical decision support tools. As Epic is reported to be the most globally adopted EHR, researchers can take advantage of its various system features, including pooled data, integration of modules and developing decision support tools. Such research opportunities afforded by the system can contribute to improving quality of care, building health system efficiencies, and conducting population-level studies. Although this review is limited to the Epic EHR system, the larger lessons are generalizable to other EHRs.

Development and psychometric testing of the clinical networks engagement tool.

BACKGROUND: Clinical networks are being used widely to facilitate large system transformation in healthcare, by engagement of stakeholders throughout the health system. However, there are no available instruments that measure engagement in these networks. METHODS: The study purpose was to develop and assess the measurement properties of a multiprofessional tool to measure engagement in clinical network initiatives. Based on components of the International Association of Public Participation Spectrum and expert panel review, we developed 40 items for testing. The draft instrument was distributed to 1,668 network stakeholders across different governance levels (leaders, members, support, frontline stakeholders) in 9 strategic clinical networks in Alberta (January to July 2014). With data from 424 completed surveys (25.4% response rate), descriptive statistics, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Pearson correlations, linear regression, multivariate analysis, and Cronbach alpha were conducted to assess reliability and validity of the scores. RESULTS: Sixteen items were retained in the instrument. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a four-factor solution and accounted for 85.7% of the total variance in engagement with clinical network initiatives: global engagement, inform (provided with information), involve (worked together to address concerns), and empower (given final decision-making authority). All subscales demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach alpha 0.87 to 0.99). Both the confirmatory factor analysis and regression analysis confirmed that inform, involve, and empower were all significant predictors of global engagement, with involve as the strongest predictor. Leaders had higher mean scores than frontline stakeholders, while members and support staff did not differ in mean scores. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided foundational evidence for the use of this tool for assessing engagement in clinical networks. Further work is necessary to evaluate engagement in broader network functions and activities; to assess barriers and facilitators of engagement; and, to elucidate how the maturity of networks and other factors influence engagement.