Search

Objective To evaluate GPs use of three major electronic patient record systems with emphasis on the ability of the systems to support important clinical tasks and to compare the findings with results from a study of the three major hospital-wide systems. Methods A national, cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted in Norwegian primary care. 247 (73%) of 338 GPs responded. Proportions of the respondents who reported to use the EPR system to conduct 23 central clinical tasks, differences in the proportions of users of different EPR systems and user satisfaction and perceived usefulness of the EPR system were measured. Results The GPs reported extensive use of their EPR systems to support clinical tasks. There were no significant differences in functionality between the systems, but there were differences in reported software and hardware dysfunction and user satisfaction. The respondents reported high scores in computer literacy and there was no correlation between computer usage and respondent age or gender. A comparison with hospital physicians' use of three hospital-wide EPR systems revealed that GPs had higher usage than the hospital-based MDs. Primary care EPR systems support clinical tasks far better than hospital systems with better overall user satisfaction and reported impact on the overall quality of the work. Conclusion EPR systems in Norwegian primary care that have been developed in accordance with the principles of user-centered design have achieved widespread adoption and highly integrated use. The quality and efficiency of the clinical work has increased in contrast to the situation of their hospital colleagues, who report more modest use and benefits of EPR systems.

Objective: It is not automatically given that the paper-based medical record can be eliminated after the introduction of an electronic medical record (EMR) in a hospital. Many keep and update the paper-based counterpart, and this limits the use of the EMR system. The authors have evaluated the physicians' clinical work practices and attitudes toward a system in a hospital that has eliminated the paper-based counterpart using scanning technology. Design: Combined open-ended interviews (8 physicians) and cross-sectional survey (70 physicians) were conducted and compared with reference data from a previous national survey (69 physicians from six hospitals). The hospitals in the reference group were using the same EMR system without the scanning module. Measurements: The questionnaire (English translation available as an online data supplement at ) covered frequency of use of the EMR system for 19 defined tasks, ease of performing them, and user satisfaction. The interviews were open-ended. Results: The physicians routinely used the system for nine of 11 tasks regarding retrieval of patient data, which the majority of the physicians found more easily performed than before. However, 22% to 25% of the physicians found retrieval of patient data more difficult, particularly among internists (33%). Overall, the physicians were equally satisfied with the part of the system handling the regular electronic data as that of the physicians in the reference group. They were, however, much less satisfied with the use of scanned document images than that of regular electronic data, using the former less frequently than the latter. Conclusion: Scanning and elimination of the paper-based medical record is feasible, but the scanned document images should be considered an intermediate stage toward fully electronic medical records. To our knowledge, this is the first assessment from a hospital in the process of completing such a scanning project. [1]: http://www.jaminfo.oxfordjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1197/jamia.M1337/-/DC5/

Access control mechanisms might influence on the information seeking and documentation behavior of clinicians. In this study, we have surveyed healthcare professionals in nursing homes and hospitals on their attitudes to, and experiences with using access control mechanisms. In some situations, the access control mechanisms of the EHR system made clinicians postpone documentation work. Their practice of reading what others have documented was also influenced. Not all clinicians logged out of the system when they left a workstation, and some clinicians reported to do some of their documentation work in the name of others. The reported practices might have implications for the safety of the patient.

Background It has been shown that implementation of electronic medical records (EMR) and withdrawal of the paper-based medical record is feasible, but represents a drastic change in the information environment of hospital physicians. Previous investigations have revealed considerable inter-hospital variations in EMR system use and user satisfaction. The aim of this study was to further explore changes of clinicians' work after the EMR system implementation process and how they experienced working in a paper-deprived information environment. Methods Qualitative study based on 18 semi-structured interviews with physicians in two Norwegian hospitals. Results Ten different but related characteristics of work within the EMR-based practice were identified; (1) there was closer clinical and administrative cooperation during the implementation processes; (2) there were greater benefits when everybody used the system; (3) systems supported freshmen better than experienced physicians; (4) the EMR was useful in regard to professional learning; (5) new users were given an introduction to the system by experienced; (6) younger clinicians reported different attitudes than senior clinicians, but this might be related to more than age and previous experience with computers; (7) the EMR made it easier to generate free-text notes, but this also created a potential for information overflow; (8) there is little or no support for mobile work; (9) instances of downtime are still experienced, and this influenced the attitude towards the system and (10) clinicians preferred EMR-only compared to combined paper and electronic systems. Conclusion Despite the removal of paper-based records from clinical workflow (a change that hospital clinicians perceived as highly useful), many of the old routines remained unchanged, limiting the potential of the EMR system. Thus, there is a need to not only remove paper in the physical sense, but also to established routines to fully achieve the benefits of an EMR system.

a) To document the presence and use of clinical department systems (CDS) in a university hospital that implemented a hospital-wide electronic health record (EHR) in 1999 and b) To compare clinical use of the CDS with that of the EHR.Identification of CDSs in use by contacting leaders and senior physicians at clinical departments at the hospital. Identification of key properties of each CDS by interviewing users.We identified a total of 60 CDSs, of which 53 fell in one of four categories; Journal or documentation system tailored to a department or medical specialty (19 systems), Software bundled with electronic medical equipment (control/storage/presentation) (14 systems), Logistics/administration/planning/appointments (10 systems) and Database for medical research (10 systems). Many CDSs were described to outperform the EHR system with regard to ability to provide better patient overview and better support for registering patient data. CDSs are not integrated with the EHR and thus contain islands of data.CDSs continue to fill important roles and there is no tendency towards that the hospital-wide EHR makes CDSs obsolete.

Several Norwegian hospitals have, plan, or are in the process of removing the paper-based health record from clinical workflow. To assess the impact on usage and satisfaction of electronic health record (EHR) systems, we conducted a survey among physicians, nurses and medical secretaries at selected departments from six Norwegian hospitals. The main feature of the questionnaire is the description of a set of tasks commonly performed at hospitals, and respondents were asked to rate their usage and change of ease compared to previous routines for each tasks. There were 24 tasks for physicians, 19 for nurses and 23 for medical secretaries. In total, 64 physicians, 128 nurses and 57 medical secretaries responded, corresponding to a response rate of 68%, 58% and 84% respectively. Results showed a large degree of use among medical secretaries, while physicians and nurses displayed a more modest degree of use. Possibly suggesting that the EHR systems among clinicians still is considered more of an administrative system. Among the two latter groups, tasks regarding information retrieval were used more extensively than tasks regarding generating and storing information. Also, we observed large differences between hospitals and higher satisfaction with the part of the system handling regular electronic data than scanned document images. Even though the increase in use among clinicians after removing the paper based record were mainly in tasks where respondents had no choice other than use the electronic health record, the attitude towards EHR-systems were mainly positive. Thus, while removing the paper based record has yet to promote new ways of working, we see it as an important step towards the EHR system of tomorrow. Several Norwegian hospitals have shown that it is possible.

Objective Many Norwegian hospitals that are equipped with an electronic medical record (EMR) system now have proceeded to withdraw the paper-based medical record from clinical workflow. In two previous survey-based studies on the effect of removing the paper-based medical record on the work of physicians, nurses and medical secretaries, we concluded that to scan and eliminate the paper based record was feasible, but that the medical secretaries were the group that reported to benefit the most from the change. To further explore the effects of removing the paper based record, especially in regard to medical personnel, we now have conducted a follow up study of a hospital that has scanned and eliminated its paper-based record. Design A survey of 27 physicians, 60 nurses and 30 medical secretaries was conducted. The results were compared with those from a previous study conducted three years earlier at the same department. Measurements The questionnaire (see online Appendix) covered the frequency of use of the EMR system for specific tasks by physicians, nurses and medical secretaries, the ease of performing these tasks compared to previous routines, user satisfaction and computer literacy. Results Both physicians and nurses displayed increased use of the EMR compared to the previous study, while medical secretaries reported generally unchanged but high use. Conclusion The increase in use was not accompanied by a similar change in factors such as computer literacy or technical changes, suggesting that these typical success factors are necessary but not sufficient.

Despite the fact that 53 out of 72 Norwegian hospitals (as of January 2001) have introduced electronic medical records systems (EMR), very few evaluation or comparisons between such systems have been published.We developed a questionnaire for physicians with items on computer literacy, use of electronic medical records and user satisfaction that was sent in January 2001 to 314 hospital physicians. 227 physicians responded (72%). Details about local system implementation were collected through telephone interviews with key IT personnel in each hospital.EMR functions were available for a total of 15 out of 23 tasks listed in our questionnaire. The majority of physicians used EMR for between two and seven tasks that mainly covered reading patient data, though respondents scored highly on computer literacy (72.2/100).There is a substantial discrepancy between the reported use of EMR systems and the functions available in the systems. The causes are not known, but lack of computer literacy is a less probable cause.

Background Many hospital departments have implemented small clinical departmental systems (CDSs) to collect and use patient data for documentation as well as for other department-specific purposes. As hospitals are implementing institution-wide electronic patient records (EPRs), the EPR is thought to be integrated with, and gradually substitute the smaller systems. Many EPR systems however fail to support important clinical workflows. Also, successful integration of systems has proven hard to achieve. As a result, CDSs are still in widespread use. This study was conducted to see which tasks are supported by CDSs and to compare this to the support offered by the EPR. Methods Semi-structured interviews with users of 16 clinicians using 15 different clinical departmental systems (CDS) at a Medium-sized University hospital in Norway. Inductive analysis of transcriptions from the audio taped interviews. Results The roles of CDSs were complementary to those of the hospital-wide EPR system. The use of structured patient data was a characteristic feature. This facilitated quality development and supervision, tasks that were poorly supported by the EPR system. The structuring of the data also improved filtering of information to better support clinical decision-making. Because of the high value of the structured patient data, the users put much effort in maintaining their integrity and representativeness. Employees from the departments were also engaged in the funding, development, implementation and maintenance of the systems. Conclusion Clinical departmental systems are vital to the activities of a clinical hospital department. The development, implementation and clinical use of such systems can be seen as bottom-up, user-driven innovations.

Background Evaluation is a challenging but necessary part of the development cycle of clinical information systems like the electronic medical records (EMR) system. It is believed that such evaluations should include multiple perspectives, be comparative and employ both qualitative and quantitative methods. Self-administered questionnaires are frequently used as a quantitative evaluation method in medical informatics, but very few validated questionnaires address clinical use of EMR systems. Methods We have developed a task-oriented questionnaire for evaluating EMR systems from the clinician's perspective. The key feature of the questionnaire is a list of 24 general clinical tasks. It is applicable to physicians of most specialties and covers essential parts of their information-oriented work. The task list appears in two separate sections, about EMR use and task performance using the EMR, respectively. By combining these sections, the evaluator may estimate the potential impact of the EMR system on health care delivery. The results may also be compared across time, site or vendor. This paper describes the development, performance and validation of the questionnaire. Its performance is shown in two demonstration studies (n = 219 and 80). Its content is validated in an interview study (n = 10), and its reliability is investigated in a test-retest study (n = 37) and a scaling study (n = 31). Results In the interviews, the physicians found the general clinical tasks in the questionnaire relevant and comprehensible. The tasks were interpreted concordant to their definitions. However, the physicians found questions about tasks not explicitly or only partially supported by the EMR systems difficult to answer. The two demonstration studies provided unambiguous results and low percentages of missing responses. In addition, criterion validity was demonstrated for a majority of task-oriented questions. Their test-retest reliability was generally high, and the non-standard scale was found symmetric and ordinal. Conclusion This questionnaire is relevant for clinical work and EMR systems, provides reliable and interpretable results, and may be used as part of any evaluation effort involving the clinician's perspective of an EMR system.

Background Most hospitals keep and update their paper-based medical records after introducing an electronic medical record or a hospital information system (HIS). This case report describes a HIS in a hospital where the paper-based medical records are scanned and eliminated. To evaluate the HIS comprehensively, the perspectives of medical secretaries and nurses are described as well as that of physicians. Methods We have used questionnaires and interviews to assess and compare frequency of use of the HIS for essential tasks, task performance and user satisfaction among medical secretaries, nurses and physicians. Results The medical secretaries use the HIS much more than the nurses and the physicians, and they consider that the electronic HIS greatly has simplified their work. The work of nurses and physicians has also become simplified, but they find less satisfaction with the system, particularly with the use of scanned document images. Conclusions Although the basis for reference is limited, the results support the assertion that replacing the paper-based medical record primarily benefits the medical secretaries, and to a lesser degree the nurses and the physicians. The varying results in the different employee groups emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach when evaluating a HIS.