| Literature DB >> 24914640 |
Cheng-Hsun Ho1, Hsyien-Chia Wene2, Chi-Ming Chu3, Yi-Syuan Wu4, Jen-Leng Wang5.
Abstract
The Taiwan government has been promoting Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to primary care physicians. How to extend EHRs adoption rate by measuring physicians' perspective of importance and performance of EHRs has become one of the critical issues for healthcare organizations. We conducted a comprehensive survey in 2010 in which a total of 1034 questionnaires which were distributed to primary care physicians. The project was sponsored by the Department of Health to accelerate the adoption of EHRs. 556 valid responses were analyzed resulting in a valid response rate of 53.77%. The data were analyzed based on a data-centered analytical framework (5-point Likert scale). The mean of importance and satisfaction of four dimensions were 4.16, 3.44 (installation and maintenance), 4.12, 3.51 (product effectiveness), 4.10, 3.31 (system function) and 4.34, 3.70 (customer service) respectively. This study provided a direction to government by focusing on attributes which physicians found important but were dissatisfied with, to close the gap between actual and expected performance of the EHRs. The authorities should emphasize the potential advantages in meaningful use and provide training programs, conferences, technical assistance and incentives to enhance the national level implementation of EHRs for primary physicians.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24914640 PMCID: PMC4078564 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph110606037
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The results of important-satisfaction analysis.
Importance and satisfaction analysis
| Dimensions | Attributes | Importance Mean (SD) | Importance Ranking | Satisfaction Mean (SD) | Satisfaction Ranking | Located Area |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Installation & Maintenance | IM1 | 4.36 (0.79) | 1 | 3.70 (0.94) | 2 | I |
| IM2 | 4.36 (0.78) | 1 | 3.74 (0.94) | 1 | I | |
| IM3 | 4.20 (0.82) | 3 | 3.62 (0.96) | 3 | I | |
| IM4 | 4.07 (0.87) | 4 | 3.38 (1.09) | 4 | III | |
| IM5 | 3.99 (0.96) | 5 | 3.16 (1.04) | 5 | III | |
| IM6 | 3.96 (1.02) | 6 | 3.03 (1.11) | 6 | III | |
| Mean | 4.16 (0.70) | 3.44 (0.88) | ||||
| Product Effectiveness | PE1 | 4.26 (0.77) | 2 | 3.69 (0.94) | 3 | I |
| PE2 | 4.13 (0.82) | 6 | 3.53 (1.05) | 6 | I | |
| PE3 | 4.16 (0.83) | 5 | 3.15 (1.50) | 9 | II | |
| PE4 | 4.20 (0.82) | 4 | 3.69 (0.98) | 3 | I | |
| PE5 | 4.36 (0.78) | 1 | 3.94 (0.95) | 1 | I | |
| PE6 | 4.21 (0.83) | 3 | 3.75 (1.01) | 2 | I | |
| PE7 | 4.01 (0.86) | 8 | 3.20 (1.42) | 8 | III | |
| PE8 | 3.98 (0.91) | 9 | 3.12 (1.51) | 10 | III | |
| PE9 | 3.92 (0. 94) | 10 | 3.48 (1.0) | 7 | III | |
| PE10 | 4.10 (0.91) | 7 | 3.57 (1.01) | 5 | IV | |
| Mean | 4.12 (0.68) | 3.51 (0.86) | ||||
| System Function | SF1 | 4.18 (0.79) | 4 | 3.60 (0.93) | 1 | I |
| SF2 | 4.25 (0.81) | 1 | 3.37 (1.08) | 5 | I | |
| SF3 | 4.16 (0.81) | 5 | 3.28 (1.10) | 9 | II | |
| SF4 | 3.78 (0.98) | 12 | 2.95 (1.48) | 12 | III | |
| SF5 | 4.13 (0.80) | 6 | 3.37 (1.05) | 5 | I | |
| SF6 | 4.07 (0.81) | 8 | 3.44 (1.02) | 3 | IV | |
| SF7 | 3.95 (0.86) | 11 | 2.99 (1.45) | 11 | III | |
| SF8 | 4.06 (0.83) | 9 | 3.12 (1.32) | 10 | III | |
| SF9 | 4.02 (0.85) | 10 | 3.37 (1.14) | 5 | IV | |
| SF10 | 4.13 (0.84) | 6 | 3.33 (1.27) | 8 | II | |
| SF11 | 4.19 (0.83) | 3 | 3.39 (1.05) | 4 | I | |
| SF12 | 4.22 (0.78) | 2 | 3.49 (1.0) | 2 | I | |
| Mean | 4.10 (0.70) | 3.31 (0.93) | ||||
| Customer Service | CS1 | 4.24 (0.79) | 6 | 3.82 (0.93) | 2 | IV |
| CS2 | 4.35 (0.76) | 4 | 3.83 (0.94) | 1 | I | |
| CS3 | 4.33 (0.78) | 5 | 3.71 (1.0) | 3 | IV | |
| CS4 | 4.37 (0.79) | 2 | 3.68 (1.20) | 4 | II | |
| CS5 | 4.37 (0.79) | 2 | 3.63 (1.25) | 5 | II | |
| CS6 | 4.38 (0.78) | 1 | 3.59 (1.26) | 6 | II | |
| Mean | 4.34 (0.75) | 3.70 (0.93) |
Note: IM = Installation and Maintenance; PE = Product Effectiveness; SF =System Function; CS = Customer Service; SD: Standard deviation.
Demographic data of respondents
| Variable | Number | % | Variable | Number | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Taipei | 150 | 27 | Solo | 333 | 59.9 | |
| Northern | 60 | 10.8 | 2–5 | 219 | 39.4 | |
| Central | 120 | 21.6 | 5–9 | 2 | 0.4 | |
| Southern | 99 | 17.8 | 10 & above | 2 | 0.4 | |
| Kaohsiung & Pingtung | 113 | 20.3 |
| |||
| Eastern | 14 | 2.5 | 5 | 104 | 18.7 | |
|
| 6–10 | 187 | 33.6 | |||
| Medical | 216 | 38.8 | 11–20 | 206 | 37.1 | |
| Surgical | 180 | 32.4 | 21 & above | 59 | 10.6 | |
| OBS & GYN | 13 | 2.3 | ||||
| Pediatric | 88 | 15.8 |
| |||
| Multiple | 59 | 10.6 | Below 999 | 121 | 21.8 | |
|
| 1000–1999 | 211 | 37.9 | |||
| Below 39 | 54 | 9.7 | 2000–2999 | 157 | 28.2 | |
| 40–49 | 264 | 47.5 | 3000 & above | 67 | 12.1 | |
| 50–64 | 226 | 40.6 | ||||
| 65 & above | 12 | 2.2 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Male | 510 | 91.7 | ||||
| Female | 46 | 8.3 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Director | 519 | 93.3 | ||||
| Partner | 32 | 5.8 | ||||
| Employed | 5 | 0.9 |
The Pearson correlations between variables
| Variables | Imp. of IM | Sat. of IM | Imp. of PE | Sat. of PE | Imp. of SF | Sat. of SF | Imp. of CS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction of IM | 0.324 ** | ||||||
| Importance of PE |
| 0.293 ** | |||||
| Satisfaction of PE | 0.199 ** |
| 0.311 ** | ||||
| Importance of SF |
| 0.284 ** |
| 0.283 ** | |||
| Satisfaction of SF | 0.186 ** |
| 0.214 ** |
| 0.256 ** | ||
| Importance of CS | 0.596 ** | 0.199 ** | 0.584 ** | 0.096 * |
| 0.080 | |
| Satisfaction of CS | 0.199 ** |
| 0.228 ** |
| 0.283 ** |
| 0.235 ** |
Note: Imp. = Importance; Sat. = Satisfaction; IM = Installation and Maintenance; PE = Product Effectiveness; SF = System Function; CS = Customer Service; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.