OBJECTIVE: To evaluate practitioners' expectations of, and satisfaction with, older and newer electronic health records (EHRs) after a transition. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pre- and post-transition survey administered at six academic-affiliated ambulatory care practices from 2006 to 2008. Four practices transitioned to one commercial EHR and two practices to another. We compared respondents' expectations of, and satisfaction with, the newer EHR. RESULTS: 523 subjects were eligible: 217 were available before transition and 306 after transition. 162 pre-transition and 197 post-transition responses were received, yielding 75% and 64% response rates, respectively. Practitioners were more satisfied with the newer EHRs (64%) compared with the older (56%) (p=0.15) and a small majority (58%) were satisfied with the transition. Practitioners' satisfaction with the older EHRs for completing clinical tasks was high. The newer EHRs exceeded practitioner expectations regarding remote access (61% vs 74%; p=0.03). However, the newer EHRs did not meet practitioners' expectations regarding their ability to perform clinical tasks, or more globally, improve medication safety (81% vs 61%; p<0.001), efficiency (70% vs 44%; p<0.001), and quality of care (77% vs 67%; p=0.04). DISCUSSION: Most practitioners had favorable opinions about EHRs and reported overall improved satisfaction with the newer EHRs. However, practitioners' high expectations of the newer EHRs were often unmet regarding facilitation of specific clinical tasks or for improving quality, safety, and efficiency. CONCLUSION: To ensure practitioners' expectations, for instance regarding improvements in medication safety, are met, vendors should develop and implement refinements in their software as practices upgrade to newer, certified EHRs.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate practitioners' expectations of, and satisfaction with, older and newer electronic health records (EHRs) after a transition. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pre- and post-transition survey administered at six academic-affiliated ambulatory care practices from 2006 to 2008. Four practices transitioned to one commercial EHR and two practices to another. We compared respondents' expectations of, and satisfaction with, the newer EHR. RESULTS: 523 subjects were eligible: 217 were available before transition and 306 after transition. 162 pre-transition and 197 post-transition responses were received, yielding 75% and 64% response rates, respectively. Practitioners were more satisfied with the newer EHRs (64%) compared with the older (56%) (p=0.15) and a small majority (58%) were satisfied with the transition. Practitioners' satisfaction with the older EHRs for completing clinical tasks was high. The newer EHRs exceeded practitioner expectations regarding remote access (61% vs 74%; p=0.03). However, the newer EHRs did not meet practitioners' expectations regarding their ability to perform clinical tasks, or more globally, improve medication safety (81% vs 61%; p<0.001), efficiency (70% vs 44%; p<0.001), and quality of care (77% vs 67%; p=0.04). DISCUSSION: Most practitioners had favorable opinions about EHRs and reported overall improved satisfaction with the newer EHRs. However, practitioners' high expectations of the newer EHRs were often unmet regarding facilitation of specific clinical tasks or for improving quality, safety, and efficiency. CONCLUSION: To ensure practitioners' expectations, for instance regarding improvements in medication safety, are met, vendors should develop and implement refinements in their software as practices upgrade to newer, certified EHRs.
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: Rainu Kaushal; David W Bates; Chelsea A Jenter; Shannon A Mills; Lynn A Volk; Elisabeth Burdick; Micky Tripathi; Steven R Simon Journal: Inform Prim Care Date: 2009
Authors: Steven R Simon; Christine S Soran; Rainu Kaushal; Chelsea A Jenter; Lynn A Volk; Elisabeth Burdick; Paul D Cleary; E John Orav; Eric G Poon; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Benjamin J Duncan; Alexandra N Kassis; David R Kaufman; Adela Grando; Karl A Poterack; Rick A Helmers; Timothy K Miksch; Lu Zheng; Bradley N Doebbeling Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2021-01-25
Authors: S Emani; D Y Ting; M Healey; S R Lipsitz; A S Karson; J S Einbinder; L Leinen; V Suric; D W Bates Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 2.342
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
Authors: Srinivas Emani; David Y Ting; Michael Healey; Stuart R Lipsitz; Andrew S Karson; David W Bates Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: David A Hanauer; Greta L Branford; Grant Greenberg; Sharon Kileny; Mick P Couper; Kai Zheng; Sung W Choi Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497