How well is the electronic health record supporting the clinical tasks of hospital physicians? A survey of physicians at three Norwegian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The electronic health record is expected to improve the quality and efficiency of health care. Many novel functionalities have been introduced in order to improve medical decision making and communication between health care personnel. There is however limited evidence on whether these new functionalities are useful. The aim of our study was to investigate how well the electronic health record system supports physicians in performing basic clinical tasks. METHODS: Physicians of three prominent Norwegian hospitals participated in the survey. They were asked, in an online questionnaire, how well the hospital's electronic health record system DIPS supported 49 clinical tasks as well as how satisfied they were with the system in general, including the technical performance. Two hundred and eight of 402 physicians (52%) submitted a completely answered questionnaire. RESULTS: Seventy-two percent of the physicians had their work interrupted or delayed because the electronic health record hangs or crashes at least once a week, while 22% had experienced this problem daily. Fifty-three percent of the physicians indicated that the electronic health record is cumbersome to use and adds to their workload. The majority of physicians were satisfied with managing tests, e.g., requesting laboratory tests, reading test results and managing radiological investigations and electrocardiograms. Physicians were less satisfied with managing referrals. There was high satisfaction with some of the decision support functionalities available for prescribing drugs. This includes drug interaction alerts and drug allergy warnings, which are displayed automatically. However, physicians were less satisfied with other aspects of prescribing drugs, including getting an overview of the ongoing drug therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In the survey physicians asked for improvements of certain electronic health record functionalities like medication, clinical workflow support including planning and better overviews. In addition, there is apparently a need to focus on system stability, number of logins, reliability and better instructions on available electronic health record features. Considerable development is needed in current electronic health record systems to improve usefulness and satisfaction.

A taste of individualized medicine: physicians' reactions to automated genetic interpretations.

The potential of pharmacogenomics is well documented, and functionality exploiting this knowledge is about to be introduced into electronic medical records. To explore physicians' reactions to automatic interpretations of genetic tests, we built a prototype with a simple interpretive algorithm. The algorithm was adapted to the needs of physicians handling immunosuppressive treatment during organ transplantation. Nine physicians were observed expressing their thoughts while using the prototype for two patient scenarios. The computer screen and audio were recorded, and the qualitative results triangulated with responses to a survey instrument. The physicians' reactions to the prototype were very positive; they clearly trusted the results and the theory behind them. The explanation of the algorithm was prominently placed in the user interface for transparency, although this design led to considerable confusion. Background information and references should be available, but considerably less prominent than the result and recommendation.

From the front line, report from a near paperless hospital: mixed reception among health care professionals.

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.

Use of and attitudes to a hospital information system by medical secretaries, nurses and physicians deprived of the paper-based medical record: a case report.

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.

Task-oriented evaluation of electronic medical records systems: development and validation of a questionnaire for physicians.

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.

Effects of scanning and eliminating paper-based medical records on hospital physicians' clinical work practice.

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.

[Electronic medical records in somatic hospitals--availability and clinical use]. / Elektronisk pasientjournal ved somatiske sykehus--utbredelse og klinisk bruk.

BACKGROUND: 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. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). INTERPRETATION: 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.