BACKGROUND: Challenges in implementing electronic health records (EHRs) have received some attention, but less is known about the process of transitioning from legacy EHRs to newer systems. OBJECTIVE: To determine how ambulatory leaders differentiate implementation approaches between practices that are currently paper-based and those with a legacy EHR system (EHR-based). DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven practice managers and 12 medical directors all part of an academic ambulatory care network of a large teaching hospital in New York City in January to May of 2006. APPROACH: Qualitative approach comparing and contrasting perceived benefits and challenges in implementing an ambulatory EHR between practice leaders from paper- and EHR-based practices. Content analysis was performed using grounded theory and ATLAS.ti 5.0. RESULTS: We found that paper-based leaders prioritized the following: sufficient workstations and printers, a physician information technology (IT) champion at the practice, workflow education to ensure a successful transition to a paperless medical practice, and a high existing comfort level of practitioners and support staff with IT. In contrast, EHR-based leaders prioritized: improved technical training and ongoing technical support, sufficient protection of patient privacy, and open recognition of physician resistance, especially for those who were loyal to a legacy EHR. Unlike paper-based practices, EHR-based leadership believed that comfort level with IT and adjustments to workflow changes would not be difficult challenges to overcome. CONCLUSIONS: Leadership at paper- and EHR-based practices in 1 academic network has different priorities for implementing a new EHR. Ambulatory practices upgrading their legacy EHR have unique challenges.
BACKGROUND: Challenges in implementing electronic health records (EHRs) have received some attention, but less is known about the process of transitioning from legacy EHRs to newer systems. OBJECTIVE: To determine how ambulatory leaders differentiate implementation approaches between practices that are currently paper-based and those with a legacy EHR system (EHR-based). DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven practice managers and 12 medical directors all part of an academic ambulatory care network of a large teaching hospital in New York City in January to May of 2006. APPROACH: Qualitative approach comparing and contrasting perceived benefits and challenges in implementing an ambulatory EHR between practice leaders from paper- and EHR-based practices. Content analysis was performed using grounded theory and ATLAS.ti 5.0. RESULTS: We found that paper-based leaders prioritized the following: sufficient workstations and printers, a physician information technology (IT) champion at the practice, workflow education to ensure a successful transition to a paperless medical practice, and a high existing comfort level of practitioners and support staff with IT. In contrast, EHR-based leaders prioritized: improved technical training and ongoing technical support, sufficient protection of patient privacy, and open recognition of physician resistance, especially for those who were loyal to a legacy EHR. Unlike paper-based practices, EHR-based leadership believed that comfort level with IT and adjustments to workflow changes would not be difficult challenges to overcome. CONCLUSIONS: Leadership at paper- and EHR-based practices in 1 academic network has different priorities for implementing a new EHR. Ambulatory practices upgrading their legacy EHR have unique challenges.
Authors: Ryan T O'Connell; Christine Cho; Nidhi Shah; Karen Brown; Richard N Shiffman Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003-10-05 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Eric G Poon; David Blumenthal; Tonushree Jaggi; Melissa M Honour; David W Bates; Rainu Kaushal Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2004 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Ashish K Jha; Timothy G Ferris; Karen Donelan; Catherine DesRoches; Alexandra Shields; Sara Rosenbaum; David Blumenthal Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2006-10-11 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: D W Bates; L L Leape; D J Cullen; N Laird; L A Petersen; J M Teich; E Burdick; M Hickey; S Kleefield; B Shea; M Vander Vliet; D L Seger Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-10-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tamára L Box; Mary McDonell; Christian D Helfrich; Robert L Jesse; Stephan D Fihn; John S Rumsfeld Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Stephanie O Zandieh; Erika L Abramson; Elizabeth R Pfoh; Kay Yoon-Flannery; Alison Edwards; Rainu Kaushal Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-08-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Arshiya A Baig; Abigail E Wilkes; Andrew M Davis; Monica E Peek; Elbert S Huang; Douglas S Bell; Marshall H Chin Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2010-07-30 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Maura J McGuire; Gary Noronha; Lipika Samal; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Susan Crocetti; Steven Kravet Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-08-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Chunya Huang; Ross Koppel; John D McGreevey; Catherine K Craven; Richard Schreiber Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 2.342