Connection

DAVID BATES to Quality of Health Care

This is a "connection" page, showing publications DAVID BATES has written about Quality of Health Care.
Connection Strength

4.683
  1. Enhanced primary care and impact on quality of care in Massachusetts. Am J Manag Care. 2016 05 01; 22(5):e169-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.418
  2. Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes. Appl Clin Inform. 2014; 5(2):480-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.365
  3. Association of note quality and quality of care: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 May; 23(5):406-13.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.354
  4. How physicians document outpatient visit notes in an electronic health record. Int J Med Inform. 2013 Jan; 82(1):39-46.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.317
  5. Relationship between use of electronic health record features and health care quality: results of a statewide survey. Med Care. 2010 Mar; 48(3):203-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.273
  6. Leveraging information technology to improve quality and safety. Yearb Med Inform. 2007; 22-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.219
  7. A randomized trial of electronic clinical reminders to improve quality of care for diabetes and coronary artery disease. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005 Jul-Aug; 12(4):431-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.194
  8. Information technology and patient safety in nursing practice: an international perspective. Int J Med Inform. 2004 Aug; 73(7-8):607-14.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.185
  9. The quality case for information technology in healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2002 Oct 23; 2:7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.164
  10. Association Between Electronic Health Record Time and Quality of Care Metrics in Primary Care. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 10 03; 5(10):e2237086.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.163
  11. What practices will most improve safety? Evidence-based medicine meets patient safety. JAMA. 2002 Jul 24-31; 288(4):501-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.160
  12. Productivity, quality, and patient satisfaction: comparison of part-time and full-time primary care physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Oct; 16(10):663-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.152
  13. Renal medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) alerts and overrides in the inpatient setting following implementation of a commercial electronic health record: implications for designing more effective alerts. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021 06 12; 28(6):1081-1087.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.149
  14. The tradeoffs between safety and alert fatigue: Data from a national evaluation of hospital medication-related clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 08 01; 27(8):1252-1258.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.140
  15. Changes in the quality of care during progress from stage 1 to stage 2 of Meaningful Use. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 03 01; 24(2):394-397.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.111
  16. Evaluation of screening criteria for adverse events in medical patients. Med Care. 1995 May; 33(5):452-62.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.098
  17. Using electronic health record clinical decision support is associated with improved quality of care. Am J Manag Care. 2014 Oct 01; 20(10):e445-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.094
  18. Clinicians' perspectives on patient satisfaction in adult congenital heart disease clinics--a dimension of health care quality whose time has come. Congenit Heart Dis. 2015 Mar-Apr; 10(2):128-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.092
  19. Using electronic health records to address overweight and obesity: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Oct; 45(4):494-500.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.087
  20. Are physicians' perceptions of healthcare quality and practice satisfaction affected by errors associated with electronic health record use? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Jul-Aug; 19(4):610-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.077
  21. Massachusetts e-Health Project increased physicians' ability to use registries, and signals progress toward better care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Jul; 30(7):1256-64.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.075
  22. The relationship between electronic health record use and quality of care over time. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jul-Aug; 16(4):457-64.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  23. Understanding the decisions and values of stakeholders in health information exchanges: experiences from Massachusetts. Am J Public Health. 2009 May; 99(5):950-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  24. Readiness for electronic health records: comparison of characteristics of practices in a collaborative with the remainder of Massachusetts. Inform Prim Care. 2008; 16(2):129-37.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.059
  25. An effort to improve electronic health record medication list accuracy between visits: patients' and physicians' response. Int J Med Inform. 2008 Mar; 77(3):153-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.056
  26. Implementation and use of an electronic health record within the Indian Health Service. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Mar-Apr; 14(2):191-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.055
  27. Determinants of racial/ethnic differences in blood pressure management among hypertensive patients. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2005 Jun 22; 5(1):16.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  28. Communication factors in the follow-up of abnormal mammograms. J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Apr; 19(4):316-23.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.045
  29. Primary care clinician attitudes towards electronic clinical reminders and clinical practice guidelines. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003; 848.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.041
  30. Survey of primary care physicians and home care clinicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Apr; 17(4):253-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.039
  31. Reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001 Jul-Aug; 8(4):299-308.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.037
  32. Communication breakdown in the outpatient referral process. J Gen Intern Med. 2000 Sep; 15(9):626-31.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  33. The use of information technology in improving medical performance. Part I. Information systems for medical transactions. MedGenMed. 2000 Feb 07; 2(1):E14.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.034
  34. What proportion of common diagnostic tests appear redundant? Am J Med. 1998 Apr; 104(4):361-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.030
  35. Physician and patient tools to improve chronic kidney disease care. Am J Manag Care. 2018 04 01; 24(4):e107-e114.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.030
  36. Exploring the roots of unintended safety threats associated with the introduction of hospital ePrescribing systems and candidate avoidance and/or mitigation strategies: a qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Sep; 26(9):722-733.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  37. Ten key considerations for the successful optimization of large-scale health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 01; 24(1):182-187.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  38. Computerized physician order entry and quality of care. Qual Manag Health Care. 1994; 2(4):18-27.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.022
  39. Off the hamster wheel? Qualitative evaluation of a payment-linked patient-centered medical home (PCMH) pilot. Milbank Q. 2012 Sep; 90(3):484-515.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  40. Opportunities and challenges in creating an international centralised knowledge base for clinical decision support systems in ePrescribing. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 Jul; 20(7):625-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  41. A survey of health information exchange organizations in the United States: implications for meaningful use. Ann Intern Med. 2011 May 17; 154(10):666-71.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  42. Electronic health record use and the quality of ambulatory care in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Jul 09; 167(13):1400-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  43. Defining the priorities and challenges for the adoption of Information Technology in HealthCare: opinions from an expert panel. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003; 881.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.