A qualitative study of physician perspectives on adaptation to electronic health records.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sieck CJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7008538 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A qualitative study of physician perspectives on adaptation to electronic health records.
Sieck Cynthia J CJ Pearl Nicole N Bright Tiffani J TJ Yen Po-Yin PY
BMC medical informatics and decision making 20200210 1
<h4>Background</h4>Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have the potential to improve many aspects of care and their use has increased in the last decade. Because of this, acceptance and adoption of EHRs is less of a concern than adaptation to use. To understand this issue more deeply, we conducted a qualitative study of physician perspectives on EHR use to identify factors that facilitate adaptation.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted semi-structured interviews with 9 physicians across a range of inpatien ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundGiving patients access to their medical records (ie, open health records) can support doctor-patient communication and patient-centered care and can improve quality of care, patients' health literacy, self-care, and treatment adherence. In Germany, patients are entitled by law to have access to their medical records. However, in practice doing so remains an exception in Germany. So far, research has been focused on organizational implementation barriers. Little is known about physicians' attitudes and perspectives toward opening records in German primary care.ObjectiveThis qualitative study aims to provide a better understanding of physicians' attitudes toward opening records in primary care in Germany. To expand the knowledge base that future implementation programs could draw from, this study focuses on professional self-conception as an influencing factor regarding the approval for open health records. Perspectives of practicing primary care physicians and advanced medical students were explored.MethodsData were collected through semistructured guide-based interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and advanced medical students. Participants were asked to share their perspectives on open health records in German general practices, as well as perceived implications, their expectations for future medical records, and the conditions for a potential implementation. Data were pseudonymized, audiotaped, and transcribed verbatim. Themes and subthemes were identified through thematic analysis.ResultsBarriers and potential advantages were reported by 7 GPs and 7 medical students (N=14). The following barriers were identified: (1) data security, (2) increased workload, (3) costs, (4) the patients' limited capabilities, and (5) the physicians' concerns. The following advantages were reported: (1) patient education and empowerment, (2) positive impact on the practice, and (3) improved quality of care. GPs' professional self-conception influenced their approval for open records: GPs considered their aspiration for professional autonomy and freedom from external control to be threatened and their knowledge-based support of patients to be obstructed by open records. Medical students emphasized the chance to achieve shared decision making through open records and expected the implementation to be realistic in the near future. GPs were more hesitant and voiced a strong resistance toward sharing notes on perceptions that go beyond clinical data. Reliable technical conditions, the participants' consent, and a joint development of the implementation project to meet the GPs' interests were requested.ConclusionsOpen health record concepts can be seen as a chance to increase transparency in health care. For a potential future implementation in Germany, thorough consideration regarding the compatibility of GPs' professional values would be warranted. However, the medical students' positive attitude provides an optimistic perspective. Further research and a broad support from decision makers would be crucial to establish open records in Germany.
| S-EPMC7679209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the rapid adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) resulting from the reimbursement program of the US government, EHR adoption in behavioral hospitals is still slow, and there remains a lack of evidence regarding barriers and facilitators to the implementation of mental health care EHRs.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to analyze the experience of mental health professionals to explore the perceived barriers, facilitators, and critical ideas influencing the implementation and usability of a mental health care EHR.MethodsIn this phenomenological qualitative study, we interviewed physicians, nurses, pharmacists, mental health clinicians, and administrative professionals separately at 4 behavioral hospitals in the United States. We conducted semistructured interviews (N=43) from behavioral hospitals involved in the adoption of the mental health care EHR. Purposeful sampling was used to maximize the diversity. Transcripts were coded and analyzed for emergent domains. An exploratory data analysis was conducted.ResultsContent analyses revealed 7 barriers and 4 facilitators. The most important barriers to implementing the mental health care EHR were the low levels of computer proficiency among nurses, complexity of the system, alert fatigue, and resistance because of legacy systems. This led to poor usability, low acceptability, and distrust toward the system. The major facilitators to implementing the mental health care EHR were well-executed training programs, improved productivity, better quality of care, and the good usability of the mental health care EHR.ConclusionsHealth care professionals expected to enhance their work productivity and interprofessional collaboration by introducing the mental health care EHR. Routine education for end users is an essential starting point for the successful implementation of mental health care EHR electronic decision support. When adopting the mental health care EHR, managers need to focus on common practices in behavioral hospitals, such as documenting structured data in their organizations and adopting a seamless workflow of mental health care into the system.
| S-EPMC8063095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGeneral practices (GPs) in England have recently introduced a nationwide electronic personal health record (ePHR) system called Patient Online or GP online services, which allows patients to view parts of their medical records, book appointments, and request prescription refills. Although this system is free of charge, its adoption rates are low. To improve patients' adoption and implementation success of the system, it is important to understand the factors affecting their use of the system.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to explore patients' perspectives of factors affecting their use of ePHRs in England.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was carried out between August 21 and September 26, 2017. A questionnaire was used in this survey to collect mainly quantitative data through closed-ended questions in addition to qualitative data through an open-ended question. A convenience sample was recruited in 4 GPs in West Yorkshire, England. Given that the quantitative data were analyzed in a previous study, we analyzed the qualitative data using thematic analysis.ResultsOf the 800 eligible patients invited to participate in the survey, 624 (78.0%) returned a fully completed questionnaire. Of those returned questionnaires, the open-ended question was answered by 136/624 (21.8%) participants. A total of 2 meta-themes emerged from participants' responses. The first meta-theme comprises 5 themes about why patients do not use Patient Online: concerns about using Patient Online, lack of awareness of Patient Online, challenges regarding internet and computers, perceived characteristics of nonusers, and preference for personal contact. The second meta-theme contains 1 theme about why patients use Patient Online: encouraging features of Patient Online.ConclusionsThe challenges and concerns that impede the use of Patient Online seem to be of greater importance than the facilitators that encourage its use. There are practical considerations that, if incorporated into the system, are likely to improve its adoption rate: Patient Online should be useful, easy to use, secure, and easy to access. Different channels should be used to increase the awareness of the system, and GPs should ease registration with the system and provide manuals, training sessions, and technical support. More research is needed to assess the effect of the new factors found in this study (eg, lack of trust, difficulty registering with Patient Online) and factors affecting the continuing use of the system.
| S-EPMC7840286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care needs to be patient-centered, integrated, and interprofessional to help patients with complex needs manage the burden of medication-related problems. Considering the growing problem of polypharmacy, increasing attention has been paid to how and when medication-related decisions should be coordinated across multidisciplinary care teams. Improved knowledge on how integrated electronic health records (EHRs) can support interprofessional shared decision-making for medication therapy management is necessary to continue improving patient care. OBJECTIVE:The objective of our study was to examine how physicians and pharmacists understand and communicate patient-focused medication information with each other and how this knowledge can influence the design of EHRs. METHODS:This study is part of a broader cross-Canada study between patients and health care providers around how medication-related decisions are made and communicated. We visited community pharmacies, team-based primary care clinics, and independent-practice family physician clinics throughout Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and Quebec. Research assistants conducted semistructured interviews with physicians and pharmacists. A modified version of the Multidisciplinary Framework Method was used to analyze the data. RESULTS:We collected data from 19 pharmacies and 9 medical clinics and identified 6 main themes from 34 health care professionals. First, Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making was not occurring and clinicians made decisions based on their understanding of the patient. Physicians and pharmacists reported indirect Communication, incomplete Information specifically missing insight into indication and adherence, and misaligned Processes of Care that were further compounded by EHRs that are not designed to facilitate collaboration. Scope of Practice examined professional and workplace boundaries for pharmacists and physicians that were internally and externally imposed. Physicians decided on the degree of the Physician-Pharmacist Relationship, often predicated by colocation. CONCLUSIONS:We observed limited communication and collaboration between primary care providers and pharmacists when managing medications. Pharmacists were missing key information around reason for use, and physicians required accurate information around adherence. EHRs are a potential tool to help clinicians communicate information to resolve this issue. EHRs need to be designed to facilitate interprofessional medication management so that pharmacists and physicians can move beyond task-based work toward a collaborative approach.
| S-EPMC6231837 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore physician satisfaction with an electronic medical records (EMR) system, to identify and explore the main limitations of the system and finally to submit recommendations to address these limitations.DesignA descriptive qualitative study that entailed three focus group interviews was performed among physicians using open-ended questions. The interviews were audiotaped, documented and transcribed verbatim. The themes were explored and analysed in different categories.SettingThe study was conducted in primary healthcare centres (PHC) in Al Ain, United Arab Emirates (UAE).ParticipantsA total of 23 physicians, all using the same EMR system, attended one of three focus groups held in PHC in Al Ain Medical District. Each focus group consisted of 7-9 physicians working in PHC as family medicine specialists, residents or general practitioners.Primary outcome measurePhysician satisfaction with the EMR system.ResultsKey themes emerged and were categorised as physician-dependent, patient-related and system-related factors. In general, physicians were satisfied with the EMR system in spite of initial difficulties with implementation. Most participants identified that the long time required to do the documentation affected their practice and patient communication. Many physicians expressed satisfaction with the orders and results of laboratory and radiology functions and they emphasised that this was the strongest point in the EMR. They were also satisfied with the electronic prescription function, stating that it reduced errors and saved time.ConclusionsPhysicians are satisfied with the EMR and have a positive perception regarding the application of the system. Several themes emerged during this study that need to be considered to enhance the EMR system. Further studies need to be conducted among other healthcare practitioners and patients to explore their attitude and perception about the EMR.
| S-EPMC4225459 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEHR phenotyping offers the ability to rapidly assemble a precisely defined cohort of patients prescreened for eligibility to participate in health-related research. Even so, stakeholders in the process must still contend with the practical and ethical challenges associated with research recruitment. Patient perspectives on these matters are particularly important given that the success of research recruitment depends on patients' willingness to participate.MethodsWe conducted 15 focus groups (n =?110 participants) in four counties in diverse regions of the southeastern US: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Piedmont area of North Carolina. Based on a hypothetical study of a behavioral intervention for type 2 diabetes, we asked about the acceptability and appropriateness of direct investigator versus physician-mediated contact with patients for research recruitment, and whether patients should be asked to opt in or opt out of further contact in response to recruitment letters.ResultsFor initial contact, nearly all participants said it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients directly and three-fourths said that it would be acceptable for researchers to contact patients through their physicians. When we asked which would be most appropriate, a substantial majority chose direct contact. Themes that arose in the discussion included trust and transparency, decision-making power, the effect on research, and the effect on patient care. For response expectations, the vast majority of participants said both opt-in and opt-out would be acceptable-typically finding neither especially problematic and noting that both afford patients the opportunity to make their own decisions.ConclusionsExternal validity relies heavily on researchers' success enrolling eligible patients and failure to reach accrual targets is a costly and common barrier to advancing scientific knowledge. Our results suggest that patients recognize multiple advantages and disadvantages of different research recruitment strategies and place value on the implications not just for themselves, but also for researchers and healthcare providers. Our findings, including rich qualitative detail, contribute to the body of empirical and ethical literature on improving research recruitment and suggest specific ways forward as well as important areas for future research.
| S-EPMC6390331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInteroperable electronic health record (EHR) solutions are currently being implemented in Canada, as in many other countries. Understanding EHR users' perspectives is key to the success of EHR implementation projects. This Delphi study aimed to assess in the Canadian context the applicability, the importance, and the priority of pre-identified factors from a previous mixed-methods systematic review of international literature.MethodsA three-round Delphi study was held with representatives of 4 Canadian EHR user groups defined as partners of the implementation process who use or are expected to use EHR in their everyday activity. These groups are: non-physician healthcare professionals, health information professionals, managers, and physicians. Four bilingual online questionnaire versions were developed from factors identified by the systematic review. Participants were asked to rate the applicability and the importance of each factor. The main outcome measures were consensus and priority. Consensus was defined a priori as strong (≥ 75%) or moderate (≥ 60-74%) according to user groups' level of agreement on applicability and importance, partial (≥ 60%) when participants agreed only on applicability or importance, or as no consensus (< 60%). Priority for decision-making was defined as factors with strong consensus with scores of 4 or 5 on a five-point Likert scale for applicability and importance.ResultsThree Delphi rounds were completed by 64 participants. Levels of consensus of 100%, 64%, 64%, and 44% were attained on factors submitted to non-physician healthcare professionals, health information professionals, managers, and physicians, respectively. While agreement between and within user groups varied, key factors were prioritized if they were classified as strong (≥ 75% from questionnaire answers of user groups), for decision-making concerning EHR implementation. The 10 factors that were prioritized are perceived usefulness, productivity, motivation, participation of end-users in the implementation strategy, patient and health professional interaction, lack of time and workload, resources availability, management, outcome expectancy, and interoperability.ConclusionsAmongst all factors influencing EHR implementation identified in a previous systematic review, ten were prioritized through this Delphi study. The varying levels of agreement between and within user groups could mean that users' perspectives of each factor are complex and that each user group has unique professional priorities and roles in the EHR implementation process. As more EHR implementations in Canada are completed it will be possible to corroborate this preliminary result with a larger population of EHR users.
| S-EPMC3470948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA high proportion of patients with severe mental illness relapse due to nonadherence to psychotropic medication. In this paper, we use the normalization process theory (NPT) to describe the implementation of a web-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) for Community Mental Health Services (CMHS) called Actionable Intime Insights or AI2. AI2 has two distinct functions: (1) it provides an overview of medication and treatment history to assist in reviewing patient adherence and (2) gives alerts indicating nonadherence to support early intervention.ObjectiveOur objective is to evaluate the pilot implementation of the AI2 application to better understand the challenges of implementing a web-based CDSS to support medication adherence and early intervention in CMHS.MethodsThe NPT and participatory action framework were used to both explore and support implementation. Qualitative data were collected over the course of the 14-month implementation, in which researchers were active participants. Data were analyzed and coded using the NPT framework. Qualitative data included discussions, meetings, and work products, including emails and documents.ResultsThis study explores the barriers and enablers of implementing a CDSS to support early intervention within CMHS using Medicare data from Australia's national electronic record system, My Health Record (MyHR). The implementation was a series of ongoing negotiations, which resulted in a staged implementation with compromises on both sides. Clinicians were initially hesitant about using a CDSS based on MyHR data and expressed concerns about the changes to their work practice required to support early intervention. Substantial workarounds were required to move the implementation forward. This pilot implementation allowed us to better understand the challenges of implementation and the resources and support required to implement and sustain a model of care based on automated alerts to support early intervention.ConclusionsThe use of decision support based on electronic health records is growing, and while implementation is challenging, the potential benefits of early intervention to prevent relapse and hospitalization and ensure increased efficiency of the health care system are worth pursuing.
| S-EPMC9297136 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe use of electronic health records (EHRs) for research has the potential to improve the diagnosis and treatment of disease, yet contact with patients based on results of EHR phenotyping has received little attention. Researchers will almost certainly discover discrepancies in EHRs that call for resolution and, in some cases, raise the ethical dilemma of whether to contact patients about a potentially undiagnosed or untreated health concern. The objective of this study was to explore patients' attitudes and opinions about potential contact by researchers who have had access to their EHRs.Materials and methodsWe conducted 15 focus groups in four diverse counties in the southeastern United States. We designed vignettes to describe different situations in which researchers conducting a hypothetical study might have reason to consider contact with patients.ResultsMany patients believed it was important for researchers to take action if they discovered information suggesting a current serious health concern. Relaying the information through patients' physicians was considered the most appropriate course of action. Across vignettes, there were significant differences between urban and rural sites.Discussion and conclusionsResearchers may increasingly encounter situations involving contact with patients following EHR phenotyping. They should carefully consider the possibility of such contact when planning their studies, including the time and expertise needed to adjudicate potentially serious discrepancies. Our focus group results are one source of input for the development of ethical approaches to the research use of EHRs.
| S-EPMC6118867 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effect electronic health record (EHR) implementation has on physician satisfaction and patient care remains unclear. A better understanding of physician perceptions of EHRs and factors that influence those perceptions is needed to improve the physician and patient experience when using EHRs.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine provider and clinical practice factors associated with physician EHR satisfaction and perception of patient impact.MethodsWe surveyed a random sample of physicians, including residents and fellows, at a US quaternary care academic hospital from February to March 2016. The survey assessed provider demographics, clinical practice factors (ie, attending, fellow, or resident), and overall EHR experience. The primary outcomes assessed were provider satisfaction and provider perceptions of impact to patient care. Responses on the satisfaction and patient impact questions were recorded on a continuous scale initially anchored at neutral (scale range 0 to 100: 0 defined as "extremely negatively" and 100 as "extremely positively"). Independent variables assessed included demographic and clinical practice factors, including perceived efficiency in using the EHR. One-way analysis of variance or the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for bivariate comparisons, and linear regression was used for multivariable modeling.ResultsOf 157 physicians, 111 (70.7%) completed the survey; 51.4% (57/111) of the respondents were attending physicians, and of those, 71.9% (41/57) reported a >50% clinical full-time-equivalency and half reported supervising residents >50% of the time. A total of 50.5% (56/111) of the respondents were primary care practitioners, previous EHR experience was evenly distributed, and 12.6% (14/111) of the total sample were EHR super-users. Responses to how our current EHR affects satisfaction were rated above the neutral survey anchor point (mean 58 [SD 22]), as were their perceptions as to how the EHR impacts the patient (mean 61 [SD 18]). In bivariate comparisons, only physician age, clinical role (resident, fellow, or attending), and perceived efficiency were associated with EHR satisfaction. In the linear regression models, physicians with higher reported perceived efficiency reported higher overall satisfaction and patient impact after controlling for other variables in the model.ConclusionsPhysician satisfaction with EHRs and their perception of its impact on clinical care were generally positive, but physician characteristics, greater age, and attending level were associated with worse EHR satisfaction. Perceived efficiency is the factor most associated with physician satisfaction with EHRs when controlling for other factors. Understanding physician perceptions of EHRs may allow targeting of technology resources to ensure efficiency and satisfaction with EHR system use during clinical care.
| S-EPMC6470463 | biostudies-literature