Search

Electronic health records (EHRs) have an impact on physicians&rsquo, well-being and stress levels. We studied physicians&rsquo, experiences with EHRs and their experienced time pressure and self-rated stress by an electronic questionnaire sent to Finnish physicians aged under 65 in 2017. Our sample was 2980 physicians working in the public sector, health care centers (35.5%) or hospitals (64.5%). Experienced technical problems were positively associated with experienced time pressure, whereas user-friendliness of the EHRs was negatively associated with experienced time pressure. Low perceived support for internal cooperation was associated with high levels of time pressure in hospitals. Those experiencing high levels of technical problems were 1.3 times more likely to experience stress compared to those experiencing low levels of technical problems. Better user-friendliness of the EHRs was associated with lower levels of self-rated stress. In both working environments but more strongly in primary health care, technical problems were associated with self-rated stress. Technical problems and user-friendliness of EHRs are the main factors associated with time pressure and self-rated stress. Health care environments differ in the nature of workflow having different demands on the EHRs. Developing EHR systems should consider the special needs of different environments and workflows, enabling better work well-being amongst physicians.

BackgroundConstantly changing and difficult-to-use information systems have arisen as a significant source of stress in physicians’ work. Physicians have reported several usability problems, system failures, and a lack of integration between the systems and have experienced that systems poorly support the documentation and retrieval of patient data. This stress has kept rising in the 21st century, and it seems that it may also affect physicians’ well-being.ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine the associations of (1) usability variables (perceived benefits, technical problems, support for feedback, and user-friendliness), (2) the number of systems in daily use, (3) experience of using information systems, and (4) participation in information systems development work with physicians’ distress and levels of stress related to information systems (SRIS) levels.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among 4018 Finnish physicians (64.82%, 2572 out of 3968 women) aged between 24 and 64 years (mean 46.8 years) in 2017. The analyses of covariance were used to examine the association of independent variables with SRIS and distress (using the General Health Questionnaire) adjusted for age, gender, employment sector, specialization status, and the electronic health record system in use.ResultsHigh levels of technical problems and a high number of systems in daily use were associated with high levels of SRIS, whereas high levels of user-friendliness, perceived benefits, and support for feedback were associated with low levels of SRIS. Moreover, high levels of technical problems were associated with high levels of psychological distress, whereas high levels of user-friendliness were associated with low distress levels. Those who considered themselves experienced users of information systems had low levels of both SRIS and distress.ConclusionsIt seems that by investing in user-friendly systems with better technical quality and good support for feedback that professionals perceive as being beneficial would improve the work-related well-being and overall well-being of physicians. Moreover, improving physicians’ skills related to information systems by giving them training could help to lessen the stress that results from poorly functioning information systems and improve physicians’ well-being.

Background and Objective Finnish physicians have been increasingly dissatisfied with poor usability of the electronic patient record (EPR) systems, which they have identified as an overload factor in their work. Our aim is to specify which factors in EPRs are associated with work-related well-being of physicians. Methods A web-based questionnaire was sent to Finnish physicians younger than 65 years; the responses (n = 3,781) represent one-fourth of these. This was a repetition of a survey in 2010, where this questionnaire was used for the first time. In addition to statements assessing usability, there were questions measuring time pressure and job control. The relation between usability and work well-being was investigated with hierarchical multivariate regression analyses: With time pressure and job control as dependent variables, EPR usability assessments and physicians' background information were used as independent variables. Results In the multivariate analyses, technical problems that are often experienced in the EPR were related to higher time pressure and lower job control. Active participation in the development of the EPR system was related to stronger time pressure and stronger job control. In addition, use of several systems daily and the experience of time-consuming documentation of patient information for statistical purposes (billing, national registries, and reporting) were related to higher time pressure, while those with longer experience with the EPR system and those experiencing easy-to-read nursing records reported higher job control. Conclusion To relieve time pressure and increase sense of job control experienced by physicians, usability, integrations, and stability of the EPR systems should be improved: fewer login procedures, easier readability of nursing records, and decreased need for separate documentation for statistical purposes. Physician participation in the EPR development would increase the feeling of job control, but would add the time pressure. Hence, time for developmental work should be arranged.

Purpose: Survey studies of health information systems use tend to focus on availability of functionalities, adoption and intensity of use. Usability surveys have not been systematically conducted by any healthcare professional groups on a national scale on a repeated basis. This paper presents results from two cross-sectional surveys of physicians' experiences with the usability of currently used EHR systems in Finland. The research questions were: To what extent has the overall situation improved between 2010 and 2014? What differences are there between healthcare sectors? Methods: In the spring of 2014, a survey was conducted in Finland using a questionnaire that measures usability and respondents' user experiences with electronic health record (EHR) systems. The survey was targeted to physicians who were actively doing clinical work. Twenty-four usability-related statements, that were identical in 2010 and 2014, were analysed from the survey. The respondents were also asked to give an overall rating of the EHR system they used. The study data comprised responses from 3081 physicians from the year 2014 and from 3223 physicians in the year 2010, who were using the nine most commonly used EHR system brands in Finland. Results: Physicians' assessments of the usability of their EHR system remain as critical as they were in 2010. On a scale from 1 ('fail') to 7 ('excellent') the average of overall ratings of their principally used EHR systems varied from 3.2 to 4.4 in 2014 (and in 2010 from 2.5 to 4.3). The results show some improvements in the following EHR functionalities and characteristics: summary view of patient's health status, prevention of errors associated with medication ordering, patient's medication list as well as support for collaboration and information exchange between the physician and the nurses. Even so, support for cross-organizational collaboration between physicians and for physician-patient collaboration were still considered inadequate. Satisfaction with technical features had not improved in four years. The results show marked differences between the EHR system brands as well as between healthcare sectors (private sector, public hospitals, primary healthcare). Compared to responses from the public sector, physicians working in the private sector were more satisfied with their EHR systems with regards to statements about user interface characteristics and support for routine tasks. Overall, the study findings are similar to our previous study conducted in 2010. Conclusions: Surveys about the usability of EHR systems are needed to monitor their development at regional and national levels. To our knowledge, this study is the first national eHealth observatory questionnaire that focuses on usability and is used to monitor the long-term development of EHRs. The results do not show notable improvements in physician's ratings for their EHRs between the years 2010 and 2014 in Finland. Instead, the results indicate the existence of serious problems and deficiencies which considerably hinder the efficiency of EHR use and physician's routine work. The survey results call for considerable amount of development work in order to achieve the expected benefits of EHR systems and to avoid technology-induced errors which may endanger patient safety. The findings of repeated surveys can be used to inform healthcare providers, decision makers and politicians about the current state of EHR usability and differences between brands as well as for improvements of EHR usability. This survey will be repeated in 2017 and there is a plan to include other healthcare professional groups in future surveys. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

To analyse the technical quality of electronic patient records in relation to legislation and to evaluate their quality associated with the quality of consultations as rated by patients and GPs.Cross-sectional study of electronic patient records.Four primary healthcare (PHC) centres in Finland using three different electronic patient record systems.Patient records of 175 PHC consultations by 50 GPs, rated as the best (n=86) and the worst (n=89) of a total of 2191 consultations.Documentation of records compared with legislation, the general informative value of records, and its relation to the experienced quality of consultations and to the electronic system employed.Reason for encounter was mentioned in 79% of cases and patient history in 32%. An acute problem was described moderately well or well in 84%, examination findings in 62%, medical problem or diagnosis in 90%, and treatment in 95% of cases. Medication was documented adequately in 38% of the cases where medication was documented. Concerning general informative value, 18% were assessed as poor, 62% as moderate, and 20% as good. No correspondence was found between experienced quality of consultation and general informative value in the patient records. The quality of patient records was found to change according to the electronic system employed.Finnish patient records are inadequate documents of consultations and below the standard of that country's legislation. Developing better models of recording would guarantee a higher quality of work.