OBJECTIVE: The slow adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems has been linked to physician resistance to change and the expense of EHR adoption. This qualitative study was conducted to evaluate benefits, and clarify limitations of two mature, robust, comprehensive EHR Systems by tech-savvy physicians where resistance and expense are not at issue. METHODS: Two EHR systems were examined - the paperless VistA / Computerized Patient Record System used at the Veterans' Administration, and the General Electric Centricity Enterprise system used at an academic medical center. A series of interviews was conducted with 20 EHR-savvy multiinstitutional internal medicine (IM) faculty and house staff. Grounded theory was used to analyze the transcribed data and build themes. The relevance and importance of themes were constructed by examining their frequency, convergence, and intensity. RESULTS: Despite eliminating resistance to both adoption and technology as drivers of acceptance, these two robust EHR's are still viewed as having an adverse impact on two aspects of patient care, physician workflow and team communication. Both EHR's had perceived strengths but also significant limitations and neither were able to satisfactorily address all of the physicians' needs. CONCLUSION: Difficulties related to physician acceptance reflect real concerns about EHR impact on patient care. Physicians are optimistic about the future benefits of EHR systems, but are frustrated with the non-intuitive interfaces and cumbersome data searches of existing EHRs.
OBJECTIVE: The slow adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems has been linked to physician resistance to change and the expense of EHR adoption. This qualitative study was conducted to evaluate benefits, and clarify limitations of two mature, robust, comprehensive EHR Systems by tech-savvy physicians where resistance and expense are not at issue. METHODS: Two EHR systems were examined - the paperless VistA / Computerized Patient Record System used at the Veterans' Administration, and the General Electric Centricity Enterprise system used at an academic medical center. A series of interviews was conducted with 20 EHR-savvy multiinstitutional internal medicine (IM) faculty and house staff. Grounded theory was used to analyze the transcribed data and build themes. The relevance and importance of themes were constructed by examining their frequency, convergence, and intensity. RESULTS: Despite eliminating resistance to both adoption and technology as drivers of acceptance, these two robust EHR's are still viewed as having an adverse impact on two aspects of patient care, physician workflow and team communication. Both EHR's had perceived strengths but also significant limitations and neither were able to satisfactorily address all of the physicians' needs. CONCLUSION: Difficulties related to physician acceptance reflect real concerns about EHR impact on patient care. Physicians are optimistic about the future benefits of EHR systems, but are frustrated with the non-intuitive interfaces and cumbersome data searches of existing EHRs.
Authors: Joan S Ash; Dean F Sittig; Eric G Poon; Kenneth Guappone; Emily Campbell; Richard H Dykstra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-04-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Maziar Abdolrasulnia; Nir Menachemi; Richard M Shewchuk; Peter M Ginter; W Jack Duncan; Robert G Brooks Journal: Health Care Manage Rev Date: 2008 Jul-Sep
Authors: L Grabenbauer; R Fraser; J McClay; N Woelfl; C B Thompson; J Cambell; J Windle Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 2.342
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: 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: C Mitsch; P Huber; K Kriechbaum; C Scholda; G Duftschmid; T Wrba; U Schmidt-Erfurth Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Saif Khairat; Cameron Coleman; Paige Ottmar; Thomas Bice; Ross Koppel; Shannon S Carson Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 4.497