Table 3.
Dependent variable | lna (O/E ratio emergency care)b | ||||||||
|
Model I (HIT) | Model II (EHR adoption) | Model III (EHR user value) | ||||||
|
β (SE) | P value | β (SE) | P value | β (SE) | P value | |||
Intercept | .557 (0.506) | .27 | .479 (0.65) | .46 | −.563 (1.007) | .58 | |||
HIT adoptionc | −.001 (0.001) | .54 | N/Ad | N/A | N/A | N/A | |||
HIT user-valuee | −.032 (0.016) | .04 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |||
EHR adoptionf | N/A | N/A | .053 (0.034) | .11 | N/A | N/A | |||
EHR user-valuee | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | −.018 (0.022) | .42 | |||
#beds | |||||||||
|
<150 | .037 (0.087) | .67 | −.082 (0.108) | .45 | −.087 (0.147) | .55 | ||
|
150-300 | .027 (0.046) | .56 | −.002 (0.061) | .97 | .033 (0.077) | .66 | ||
|
301-600 | −.035 (0.049) | .47 | −.002 (0.064) | .97 | .065 (0.082) | .43 | ||
|
>600 | −.028 (0.086) | .74 | .087 (0.114) | .45 | −.01 (0.14) | .94 | ||
ln(#total cases) | .102 (0.051) | .04 | .026 (0.068) | .70 | .134 (0.086) | .12 | |||
ln(#emergency cases) | −.559 (0.167) | <.001 | −.288 (0.214) | .18 | −.203 (0.286) | .48 | |||
ln(#emergency cases)^2g | .058 (0.019) | .004 | .027 (0.025) | .28 | .018 (0.033) | .58 | |||
Teaching(yes) | −.036 (0.032) | .26 | −.015 (0.214) | .72 | −.022 (0.054) | .68 | |||
Private(yes) | .007 (0.037) | .83 | .017 (0.046) | .72 | .059 (0.060) | .33 | |||
Subsample size | 261 | 174 | 82 | ||||||
R 2 | 0.098 | 0.047 | 0.117 | ||||||
F value | 2.727 | .003 | 0.905 | .52 | 1.061 | .40 |
aln implies natural logarithm.
bO/E (observed-over-expected) ratio implies better performance with lower values.
cOn a 0-to-415 scale from worst to best.
dN/A: not applicable.
eOn a 1-to-10 scale from worst to best.
fAdoption of EHR.
gTests for an inverse U–shaped relationship between case volumes and outcomes for emergency care.