Dataset Information

Quality Requirements for Electronic Health Record Systems*. A Japanese-German Information Management Perspective.

ABSTRACT:

Background

For more than 30 years, there has been close cooperation between Japanese and German scientists with regard to information systems in health care. Collaboration has been formalized by an agreement between the respective scientific associations. Following this agreement, two joint workshops took place to explore the similarities and differences of electronic health record systems (EHRS) against the background of the two national healthcare systems that share many commonalities.

Objectives

To establish a framework and requirements for the quality of EHRS that may also serve as a basis for comparing different EHRS.

Methods

Donabedian's three dimensions of quality of medical care were adapted to the outcome, process, and structural quality of EHRS and their management. These quality dimensions were proposed before the first workshop of EHRS experts and enriched during the discussions.

Results

The Quality Requirements Framework of EHRS (QRF-EHRS) was defined and complemented by requirements for high quality EHRS. The framework integrates three quality dimensions (outcome, process, and structural quality), three layers of information systems (processes and data, applications, and physical tools) and three dimensions of information management (strategic, tactical, and operational information management).

Conclusions

Describing and comparing the quality of EHRS is in fact a multidimensional problem as given by the QRF-EHRS framework. This framework will be utilized to compare Japanese and German EHRS, notably those that were presented at the second workshop.

SUBMITTER: Winter A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6291988 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR) system users devise workarounds to cope with mismatches between workflows designed in the EHR and preferred workflows in practice. Although workarounds appear beneficial at first sight, they frequently jeopardize patient safety, the quality of care, and the efficiency of care.ObjectiveThis review aims to aid in identifying, analyzing, and resolving EHR workarounds; the Sociotechnical EHR Workaround Analysis (SEWA) framework was published in 2019. Although the framework was based on a large case study, the framework still required theoretical validation, refinement, and enrichment.MethodsA scoping literature review was performed on studies related to EHR workarounds published between 2010 and 2021 in the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, or IEEE databases. A total of 737 studies were retrieved, of which 62 (8.4%) were included in the final analysis. Using an analytic framework, the included studies were investigated to uncover the rationales that EHR users have for workarounds, attributes characterizing workarounds, possible scopes, and types of perceived impacts of workarounds.ResultsThe SEWA framework was theoretically validated and extended based on the scoping review. Extensive support for the pre-existing rationales, attributes, possible scopes, and types of impact was found in the included studies. Moreover, 7 new rationales, 4 new attributes, and 3 new types of impact were incorporated. Similarly, the descriptions of multiple pre-existing rationales for workarounds were refined to describe each rationale more accurately.ConclusionsSEWA is now grounded in the existing body of peer-reviewed empirical evidence on EHR workarounds and, as such, provides a theoretically validated and more complete synthesis of EHR workaround rationales, attributes, possible scopes, and types of impact. The revised SEWA framework can aid researchers and practitioners in a wider range of health care settings to identify, analyze, and resolve workarounds. This will improve user-centered EHR design and redesign, ultimately leading to improved patient safety, quality of care, and efficiency of care.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study set out to obtain a general profile of physician time expenditure and electronic health record (EHR) limitations in a large university medical center in Germany. We also aim to illustrate the merit of a tool allowing for easier capture and prioritization of specific clinical needs at the point of care for which the current study will inform development in subsequent work.MethodsNineteen physicians across six different departments participated in this study. Direct clinical observations were conducted with 13 out of 19 physicians for a total of 2,205 minutes, and semistructured interviews were conducted with all participants. During observations, time was measured for larger activity categories (searching information, reading information, documenting information, patient interaction, calling, and others). Semistructured interviews focused on perceived limitations, frustrations, and desired improvements regarding the EHR environment.ResultsOf the observed time, 37.1% was spent interacting with the health records (9.0% searching, 7.7% reading, and 20.5% writing), 28.0% was spent interacting with patients corrected for EHR use (26.9% of time in a patient's presence), 6.8% was spent calling, and 28.1% was spent on other activities. Major themes of discontent were a spread of patient information, high and often repeated documentation burden, poor integration of (new) information into workflow, limits in information exchange, and the impact of such problems on patient interaction. Physicians stated limited means to address such issues at the point of care.ConclusionIn the study hospital, over one-third of physicians' time was spent interacting with the EHR, environment, with many aspects of used systems far from optimal and no convenient way for physicians to address issues as they occur at the point of care. A tool facilitating easier identification and registration of issues, as they occur, may aid in generating a more complete overview of limitations in the EHR environment.