Dataset Information

Persisting workarounds in Electronic Health Record System use: types, risks and benefits.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) are now widely used to create a single, shared, and reliable source of patient data throughout healthcare organizations. However, health professionals continue to experience mismatches between their working practices and what the EHR allows or directs them to do. Health professionals adopt working practices other than those imposed by the EHR to overcome such mismatches, known as workarounds. Our study aims to inductively develop a typology of enduring EHR workarounds and explore their consequences by answering the question: What types of EHR workarounds persist, and what are the user-perceived consequences?

Methods

This single case study was conducted within the Internal Medicine department of a Dutch hospital that had implemented an organization-wide, commercial EHR system over two years ago. Data were collected through observations of six EHR users (see Additional file 1, observation scheme) and 17 semi-structured interviews with physicians, nurses, administrators, and EHR support staff members. Documents were analysed to contextualize these data (see Additional file 2, interview protocol).

Results

Through a qualitative analysis, 11 workarounds were identified, predominantly performed by physicians. These workarounds are categorized into three types either performed while working with the system (in-system workflow sequence workarounds and in-system data entry workarounds) or bypassing the system (out-system workarounds). While these workarounds seem to offer short-term benefits for the performer, they often create threats for the user, the patient, the overall healthcare organization, and the system.

Conclusion

This study increases our understanding of the enduring phenomenon of working around Electronic Health Records by presenting a typology of those workarounds that persist after adoption and by reflecting on the user-perceived risks and benefits. The typology helps EHR users and their managers to identify enduring types of workarounds and differentiate between the harmful and less harmful ones. This distinction can inform their decisions to discourage or obviate the need for certain workarounds, while legitimating others.

SUBMITTER: Boonstra A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8186102 | 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:BackgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) enable health data exchange across interconnected systems from varied settings. Epic is among the 5 leading EHR providers and is the most adopted EHR system across the globe. Despite its global reach, there is a gap in the literature detailing how EHR systems such as Epic have been used for health care research.ObjectiveThe objective of this scoping review is to synthesize the available literature on use cases of the Epic EHR for research in various areas of clinical and health sciences.MethodsWe used established scoping review methods and searched 9 major information repositories, including databases and gray literature sources. To categorize the research data, we developed detailed criteria for 5 major research domains to present the results.ResultsWe present a comprehensive picture of the method types in 5 research domains. A total of 4669 articles were screened by 2 independent reviewers at each stage, while 206 articles were abstracted. Most studies were from the United States, with a sharp increase in volume from the year 2015 onwards. Most articles focused on clinical care, health services research and clinical decision support. Among research designs, most studies used longitudinal designs, followed by interventional studies implemented at single sites in adult populations. Important facilitators and barriers to the use of Epic and EHRs in general were identified. Important lessons to the use of Epic and other EHRs for research purposes were also synthesized.ConclusionsThe Epic EHR provides a wide variety of functions that are helpful toward research in several domains, including clinical and population health, quality improvement, and the development of clinical decision support tools. As Epic is reported to be the most globally adopted EHR, researchers can take advantage of its various system features, including pooled data, integration of modules and developing decision support tools. Such research opportunities afforded by the system can contribute to improving quality of care, building health system efficiencies, and conducting population-level studies. Although this review is limited to the Epic EHR system, the larger lessons are generalizable to other EHRs.

Project description:BackgroundThe Meaningful Use (MU) program has increased the national emphasis on electronic measurement of hospital quality.ObjectiveTo evaluate stroke MU and one VHA stroke electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) in national VHA data and determine sources of error in using centralized electronic health record (EHR) data.DesignOur study is a retrospective cross-sectional study of stroke quality measure eCQMs vs. chart review in a national EHR. We developed local SQL algorithms to generate the eCQMs, then modified them to run on VHA Central Data Warehouse (CDW) data. eCQM results were generated from CDW data in 2130 ischemic stroke admissions in 11 VHA hospitals. Local and CDW results were compared to chart review.Main measuresWe calculated the raw proportion of matching cases, sensitivity/specificity, and positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) for the numerators and denominators of each eCQM. To assess overall agreement for each eCQM, we calculated a weighted kappa and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa statistic for a three-level outcome: ineligible, eligible-passed, or eligible-failed.Key resultsIn five eCQMs, the proportion of matched cases between CDW and chart ranged from 95.4 %-99.7 % (denominators) and 87.7 %-97.9 % (numerators). PPVs tended to be higher (range 96.8 %-100 % in CDW) with NPVs less stable and lower. Prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappas for overall agreement ranged from 0.73-0.95. Common errors included difficulty in identifying: (1) mechanical VTE prophylaxis devices, (2) hospice and other specific discharge disposition, and (3) contraindications to receiving care processes.ConclusionsStroke MU indicators can be relatively accurately generated from existing EHR systems (nearly 90 % match to chart review), but accuracy decreases slightly in central compared to local data sources. To improve stroke MU measure accuracy, EHRs should include standardized data elements for devices, discharge disposition (including hospice and comfort care status), and recording contraindications.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The transition to the electronic health record (EHR) has brought forth a rapid cultural shift in the world of medicine, presenting both new challenges as well as opportunities for improving health care. As clinicians work to adapt to the changes imposed by the EHR, identification of best practices around the clinically excellent use of the EHR is needed. OBJECTIVE:Using the domains of clinical excellence previously defined by the Johns Hopkins Miller Coulson Academy of Clinical Excellence, this review aims to identify best practices around the clinically excellent use of the EHR. METHODS:The authors searched the PubMed database, using keywords related to clinical excellence domains and the EHR, to capture the English-language, peer-reviewed literature published between January 1, 2000, and August 2, 2016. One author independently reviewed each article and extracted relevant data. RESULTS:The search identified 606 titles, with the majority (393/606, 64.9%) in the domain of communication and interpersonal skills. Twenty-eight of the 606 (4.6%) titles were excluded from full-text review, primarily due to lack of availability of the full-text article. The remaining 578 full-text articles reviewed were related to clinical excellence generally (3/578, 0.5%) or the specific domains of communication and interpersonal skills (380/578, 65.7%), diagnostic acumen (31/578, 5.4%), skillful negotiation of the health care system (4/578, 0.7%), scholarly approach to clinical practice (41/578, 7.1%), professionalism and humanism (2/578, 0.4%), knowledge (97/578, 16.8%), and passion for clinical medicine (20/578, 3.5%). CONCLUSIONS:Results suggest that as familiarity and expertise are developed, clinicians are leveraging the EHR to provide clinically excellent care. Best practices identified included deliberate physical configuration of the clinical space to involve sharing the screen with patients and limiting EHR use during difficult and emotional topics. Promising horizons for the EHR include the ability to augment participation in pragmatic trials, identify adverse drug effects, correlate genomic data to clinical outcomes, and follow data-driven guidelines. Clinician and patient satisfaction with the EHR has generally improved with time, and hopefully continued clinician, and patient input will lead to a system that satisfies all.