title: Cross-sectional comparison of electronic and paper medical records on medication counseling in primary care clinics: a Southern Primary-Care Urban Research Network (SPUR-Net) study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  This study compared the frequency of oral counseling and written information by primary care physicians at paper medical record (PMR) clinics and electronic medical record (EMR) clinics, and assessed relationships between medication counseling and medication outcomes (knowledge, questions, reported adherence and side effects, and medication fill).
  
  
  METHODS
  A cross-sectional study with two convenience samples of English-speaking adult patients receiving > or =1 prescription at the primary care index visit was conducted in two PMR clinics, with 184 (48% response) patients seen by one of 22 physicians, and in two EMR clinics, with 249 (37% response) patients seen by one of 25 physicians. Data were from medical record reviews of the index visit and 2-week post-visit telephone interviews.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Three mutually exclusive counseling categories were evaluated. Patients received 1,095 prescriptions, 61% with oral counseling for indications, 21% with oral counseling for indications and side effects, and 12% with written information plus oral ("multi-mode") counseling. General linear mixed models found 1) less multi-mode counseling in PMR clinics (2%) than EMR clinics (20%); 2) PMR and EMR clinics were similar in oral counseling for indications and side effects; and 3) PMR clinics provided more oral counseling only for indications (69%) than EMR (53%) clinics. The impact of receiving oral or written counseling on patients' reports of having questions about their medications was inconclusive. Not receiving oral counseling for indications was associated with more questions, but not receiving written information was associated with fewer questions. Filling a prescription was lower when no oral counseling for indications and side effects was reported, but the absence of written information was associated with more prescriptions fills.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Physicians' use of EMR to print medication information did not seem to compromise their oral counseling for medication indications and side effects. This feature of the EMR was underutilized by physicians; however, future studies addressing patient recall and evaluating the quality and content of medication counseling are needed.
authors.affiliation: Department of Family and Community Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, 3701 Kirby Drive, Houston, TX 77098, USA. gkuo@bcm.edu
authors.forename: Grace M
authors.initials: GM
authors.lastname: Kuo
authors.forename: Patricia Dolan
authors.initials: PD
authors.lastname: Mullen
authors.forename: Amy
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: McQueen
authors.forename: Paul R
authors.initials: PR
authors.lastname: Swank
authors.forename: John C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Rogers
mesh_terms: D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D037001:Directive Counseling; D001330:Electronic Data Processing; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008510:Medication Systems, Hospital / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D008875:Middle Aged; D011320:Primary Health Care / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013781:Texas; D014505:Urban Population