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
6.293
-
Transformational improvement in quality care and health systems: the next decade. BMC Med. 2020 10 29; 18(1):340.
Score: 0.542
-
Patient Relationship Management: What the U.S. Healthcare System Can Learn from Other Industries. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 01; 32(1):101-104.
Score: 0.404
-
Enhanced primary care and impact on quality of care in Massachusetts. Am J Manag Care. 2016 05 01; 22(5):e169-74.
Score: 0.397
-
Leveraging evidence across the care continuum. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015 Feb; 41(2):87-96.
Score: 0.364
-
Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes. Appl Clin Inform. 2014; 5(2):480-90.
Score: 0.346
-
Association of note quality and quality of care: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 May; 23(5):406-13.
Score: 0.335
-
How physicians document outpatient visit notes in an electronic health record. Int J Med Inform. 2013 Jan; 82(1):39-46.
Score: 0.300
-
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.
Score: 0.259
-
Leveraging information technology to improve quality and safety. Yearb Med Inform. 2007; 22-9.
Score: 0.208
-
Patient-reported service quality on a medicine unit. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006 Apr; 18(2):95-101.
Score: 0.192
-
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.
Score: 0.184
-
Information technology and patient safety in nursing practice: an international perspective. Int J Med Inform. 2004 Aug; 73(7-8):607-14.
Score: 0.176
-
The quality case for information technology in healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2002 Oct 23; 2:7.
Score: 0.155
-
Association Between Electronic Health Record Time and Quality of Care Metrics in Primary Care. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 10 03; 5(10):e2237086.
Score: 0.155
-
What practices will most improve safety? Evidence-based medicine meets patient safety. JAMA. 2002 Jul 24-31; 288(4):501-7.
Score: 0.152
-
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.
Score: 0.144
-
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.
Score: 0.141
-
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.
Score: 0.133
-
Behavioral Economics Interventions in Clinical Decision Support Systems. Yearb Med Inform. 2018 Aug; 27(1):114-121.
Score: 0.117
-
Closing the loop with an enhanced referral management system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 06 01; 25(6):715-721.
Score: 0.115
-
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.
Score: 0.105
-
Evaluation of screening criteria for adverse events in medical patients. Med Care. 1995 May; 33(5):452-62.
Score: 0.092
-
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.
Score: 0.089
-
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.
Score: 0.087
-
Using electronic health records to address overweight and obesity: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Oct; 45(4):494-500.
Score: 0.083
-
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.
Score: 0.073
-
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.
Score: 0.071
-
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.
Score: 0.061
-
Understanding the decisions and values of stakeholders in health information exchanges: experiences from Massachusetts. Am J Public Health. 2009 May; 99(5):950-5.
Score: 0.061
-
Do medical inpatients who report poor service quality experience more adverse events and medical errors? Med Care. 2008 Feb; 46(2):224-8.
Score: 0.056
-
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.
Score: 0.056
-
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.
Score: 0.053
-
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.
Score: 0.052
-
Determinants of racial/ethnic differences in blood pressure management among hypertensive patients. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2005 Jun 22; 5(1):16.
Score: 0.047
-
Communication factors in the follow-up of abnormal mammograms. J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Apr; 19(4):316-23.
Score: 0.043
-
A multi-site randomized trial of a clinical decision support intervention to improve problem list completeness. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023 04 19; 30(5):899-906.
Score: 0.040
-
Primary care clinician attitudes towards electronic clinical reminders and clinical practice guidelines. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003; 848.
Score: 0.039
-
Survey of primary care physicians and home care clinicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Apr; 17(4):253-61.
Score: 0.037
-
Reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001 Jul-Aug; 8(4):299-308.
Score: 0.035
-
Communication breakdown in the outpatient referral process. J Gen Intern Med. 2000 Sep; 15(9):626-31.
Score: 0.033
-
The use of information technology in improving medical performance. Part I. Information systems for medical transactions. MedGenMed. 2000 Feb 07; 2(1):E14.
Score: 0.032
-
What proportion of common diagnostic tests appear redundant? Am J Med. 1998 Apr; 104(4):361-8.
Score: 0.028
-
Physician and patient tools to improve chronic kidney disease care. Am J Manag Care. 2018 04 01; 24(4):e107-e114.
Score: 0.028
-
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.
Score: 0.026
-
Ten key considerations for the successful optimization of large-scale health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 01; 24(1):182-187.
Score: 0.025
-
Influence of adverse drug events on morbidity and mortality in intensive care units: the JADE study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014 Dec; 26(6):573-8.
Score: 0.022
-
Computerized physician order entry and quality of care. Qual Manag Health Care. 1994; 2(4):18-27.
Score: 0.021
-
Off the hamster wheel? Qualitative evaluation of a payment-linked patient-centered medical home (PCMH) pilot. Milbank Q. 2012 Sep; 90(3):484-515.
Score: 0.019
-
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.
Score: 0.018
-
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.
Score: 0.018
-
Electronic health record use and the quality of ambulatory care in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Jul 09; 167(13):1400-5.
Score: 0.013
-
Defining the priorities and challenges for the adoption of Information Technology in HealthCare: opinions from an expert panel. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003; 881.
Score: 0.010