Impact of a computerized system for evidence-based diabetes care on completeness of records: a before–after study

Table 2 Comparison results

Group	N	Absolute difference in“Missing” fraction
Group	N	Mean Δ (SEM*)%	95% CI*
CDMS-associated note – CDMS chart	31	15.75 (2.22)	11.39, 20.11**
Provider 1	10	11.25 (3.20)	4.01, 18.49**
Provider 2	10	23.13 (3.85)	14.42, 31.83**
Provider 3	11	13.07 (4.08)	3.97, 22.16**
Usual-care – CDMS chart	30	16.47 (3.02)	10.55, 22.41**
Provider 1	10	13.75 (5.65)	0.96, 26.54**
Provider 2	9	29.17 (6.25)	14.75, 43.58**
Provider 3	11	8.52 (3.29)	1.18, 15.86**
Usual-care note – CDMS-associated	30	0.82% (3.91)	−8.48, 6.84
Provider 1	10	2.50 (4.95)	−8.69, 13.69
Provider 2	9	5.56 (6.46)	−9.34, 20.45
Provider 3	11	−4.55 (4.62)	−14.85, 5.76

*Estimated assuming an exchangeable covariance structure [26]; **p ≤ 0.05; CDMS, Chronic disease management system; SEM, Standard error of the mean; CI, Confidence interval.

ISSN: 1472-6947