» Articles » PMID: 24898277

The Preferences of Users of Electronic Medical Records in Hospitals: Quantifying the Relative Importance of Barriers and Facilitators of an Innovation

Overview
Journal Implement Sci
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2014 Jun 6
PMID 24898277
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Currently electronic medical records (EMRs) are implemented in hospitals, because of expected benefits for quality and safety of care. However the implementation processes are not unproblematic and are slower than needed. Many of the barriers and facilitators of the adoption of EMRs are identified, but the relative importance of these factors is still undetermined. This paper quantifies the relative importance of known barriers and facilitators of EMR, experienced by the users (i.e., nurses and physicians in hospitals).

Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among physicians and nurses. Participants answered ten choice sets containing two scenarios. Each scenario included attributes that were based on previously identified barriers in the literature: data entry hardware, technical support, attitude head of department, performance feedback, flexibility of interface, and decision support. Mixed Multinomial Logit analysis was used to determine the relative importance of the attributes.

Results: Data on 148 nurses and 150 physicians showed that high flexibility of the interface was the factor with highest relative importance in their preference to use an EMR. For nurses this attribute was followed by support from the head of department, presence of performance feedback from the EMR and presence of decisions support. While for physicians this ordering was different: presence of decision support was relatively more important than performance feedback and support from the head of department.

Conclusion: Considering the prominent wish of all the intended users for a flexible interface, currently used EMRs only partially comply with the needs of the users, indicating the need for closer incorporation of user needs during development stages of EMRs. The differences in priorities amongst nurses and physicians show that different users have different needs during the implementation of innovations. Hospital management may use this information to design implementation trajectories to fit the needs of various user groups.

Citing Articles

Health Workers' Acceptance and Satisfaction on the Usability of the Digital Health Goods, in Kono District, Sierra Leone.

Pognon P, Boima F, Mekonnen Z J Multidiscip Healthc. 2025; 18:1067-1079.

PMID: 40008286 PMC: 11853875. DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S509441.


High-dose chemotherapy for patients with stage III breast cancer with homologous recombination deficiency: a discrete choice experiment among healthcare providers.

Verbeek J, Azarang L, Pilli L, De Jong V, Jager A, Linn S Acta Oncol. 2024; 63:701-709.

PMID: 39256991 PMC: 11409819. DOI: 10.2340/1651-226X.2024.40276.


A mixed methods evaluation assessing the feasibility of implementing a PrEP data dashboard in the Southeastern United States.

Burgan K, McCollum C, Guzman A, Penney B, Hill S, Kudroff K BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):101.

PMID: 38238697 PMC: 10797978. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-10451-5.


Hospital contextual factors affecting the implementation of health technologies: a systematic review.

Grossi A, Hoxhaj I, Gabutti I, Specchia M, Cicchetti A, Boccia S BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1):407.

PMID: 33933068 PMC: 8088675. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06423-2.


Using discrete choice experiments to inform the design of complex interventions.

Terris-Prestholt F, Neke N, Grund J, Plotkin M, Kuringe E, Osaki H Trials. 2019; 20(1):157.

PMID: 30832718 PMC: 6399844. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3186-x.


References
1.
Sassen E . Love, hate, or indifference: how nurses really feel about the electronic health record system. Comput Inform Nurs. 2009; 27(5):281-7. DOI: 10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181b2162a. View

2.
Grol R, Wensing M . What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust. 2004; 180(S6):S57-60. DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb05948.x. View

3.
Bridges J, Hauber A, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser L, Regier D . Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011; 14(4):403-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013. View

4.
Farley K, Thompson C, Hanbury A, Chambers D . Exploring the feasibility of Conjoint Analysis as a tool for prioritizing innovations for implementation. Implement Sci. 2013; 8:56. PMC: 3668987. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-56. View

5.
Ludwick D, Doucette J . Adopting electronic medical records in primary care: lessons learned from health information systems implementation experience in seven countries. Int J Med Inform. 2008; 78(1):22-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.06.005. View