Replacing an Inpatient Electronic Medical Record

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objective: Since it is important to develop strategies for the successful implementation of electronic clinical information systems, the aim of this study is to explore where, and to what extent, users’ attitudes toward the former system that is being replaced may vary.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 346 nurses and physicians practicing in two Canadian teaching hospitals resulted in a total response rate of 63%. User attitudes were measured in three dimensions: a) user satisfaction with the system’s quality attributes, b) perceived system usefulness, and c) perceived impact on quality of care and patient safety. The current system (the one being replaced) was analyzed as a dual system composed of both paper-based and electronic records.

Results: The results on user satisfaction demonstrate a wide variation in opinions, with satisfaction ranging from 4.2 to 7.7 on a 10-point disagree-agree, Likert scale. The quality attributes varied by record type, with differences that were systematically in favor of the electronic record component, which received higher scores. The results also highlighted large differences by user group. Physicians and nurses systematically rated the two record formats differently. The nurses were more satisfied with the attributes of the paper-based record. Multivariate regression analyses results also revealed strong interdependencies among the three dimensions of user attitudes, to the extent that perceived system usefulness was strongly correlated with system quality attributes and the system outcomes were also correlated, although less strongly, with the two former system dimensions.

Conclusion: Understanding users’ attitudes toward a clinical information system in use, both in its paper and electronic aspects, is crucial for developing more successful implementation strategies for electronic record systems.

• References

• 1 Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989; 13: 318-339.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Ball MJ, Silva JS, Bierstock S, Douglas JV, Norcio AF, Chakraborty J, Srini J. Failure to provide clinicians useful IT Systems: Opportunities to leapfrog current technologies. Methods Inf Med 2008; 47 (01) 4-7.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 DeLone WH, McLean ER. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 1992; 3 (01) 60-95.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 DeLone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone & McLean Model of Information systems success: a ten-year update. BMC Med Inform & Decision Making 2003; 4 (01) 1-16.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003; 27 (03) 425-478.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 1991; 50 (02) 179-211.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations,. 4th Edition, The Free Press; 1995
  Google Scholar
• 8 Jasperson J, Carter PE, Zmud RW. A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly 2005; 29 (03) 525-557.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Aarts J, Berg M. Same Systems, Different Outcomes: Comparing the Implementation of Computerized Physician Order Entry in two Dutch Hospitals. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (01) 53-61.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Lee F, Teich JM, Spurr CD, Bates DW. Implementation of physician order entry: user satisfaction and self-reported usage patterns. J Am Med Inform Ass 1996; 3 (01) 42-55.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Murff HJ, Kannry J. Physician satisfaction with two order entry systems. J Am Med Inform Ass 2003; 8 (05) 499-509.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Van Der Meijden MJ, Tance HJ, Troost J, Hasman A. The Determinants of Success of Inpatient Clinical Information systems: a literature review. J Am Med Inform Ass 2003; 10 (03) 235-243.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Weiner M, Gress T, Thiemann DR, Jenckes M, Reel SL, Mandell SF, Bass EB. Contrasting views of physicians and nurses about an Inpatient Computerbased Provider Order-entry System. J Am Med Inform Ass 1999; 6 (03) 234-244.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Duyck P, Pynoo B, Devolder P, Voet T, Adang L, Vercruysse J. User Acceptance of a Picture Ar chiving and Communication System. Methods Inf Med 2008; 47 (02) 149-156.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Weisbord MR. Lewin: the Practical Theorist (Chapter 4) & The Learning Organization: Lewin’s Legacy to Management (Chapter 5). Productive Workplaces Revisited. Jossey-Bass 2004
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Paré G, Lepanto L, Aubry D, Sicotte C. “Toward a Multidimensional Assessment of PACS Success,”. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2005; 21 (04) 471-479.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Nunally J. Psychometric Methods (2nd Edition). McGraw Hill,; 1978
  Google Scholar
• 18 Van der Meijden MJ, Tange H, Troost J, Hasman A. Development and implementation of an EPR: how to encourage the user. International J Medical Informatics 2001; 64: 173-185.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Paré G, Sicotte C, Jacques H. The effects of creating psychological ownership on Physicians’ Acceptance of clinical information system. J Am Med Inform Ass 2006; 13 (02) 197-205.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Kohn L, Corrigan JM, Donaldson M. (eds). To Err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 1999
  Google Scholar
• 21 Ball MJ, Garets DE, Handler TJ. Leveraging Information Technology towards enhancing patient care and a culture of safety in the US. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (05) 503-508.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar