PURPOSE: The implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) has been extensively studied, but their maintenance once implemented has not. The Regional Extension Center (REC) program provides implementation assistance to priority practices-those with limited financial, technical, and organizational resources-but the assistance is time limited. Our objective was to identify potential barriers to maintenance of meaningful use of EHRs in priority primary care practices using a qualitative observational study for federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and priority practices in Michigan. METHODS: We conducted cognitive task analysis (CTA) interviews and direct observations of health information technology implementation in FQHCs. In addition, we conducted semistructured interviews with implementation specialists serving priority practices to detect emergent themes relevant to maintenance. RESULTS: Maintaining EHR technology will require ongoing expert technical support indefinitely beyond implementation to address upgrades and security needs. Maintaining meaningful use for quality improvement will require ongoing support for leadership and change management. Priority practices not associated with larger systems lack access to the necessary technical expertise, financial resources, and leverage with vendors to continue alone. Rural priority practices are particularly challenged, because expertise is often not available locally. CONCLUSIONS: Priority practices, especially in rural areas, are at high risk for falling on the wrong side of a "digital divide" as payers and regulators enact increasing expectations for EHR use and information management. For those without affiliation to maintain the necessary expert staff, ongoing support will be needed for those practices to remain viable.
PURPOSE: The implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) has been extensively studied, but their maintenance once implemented has not. The Regional Extension Center (REC) program provides implementation assistance to priority practices-those with limited financial, technical, and organizational resources-but the assistance is time limited. Our objective was to identify potential barriers to maintenance of meaningful use of EHRs in priority primary care practices using a qualitative observational study for federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and priority practices in Michigan. METHODS: We conducted cognitive task analysis (CTA) interviews and direct observations of health information technology implementation in FQHCs. In addition, we conducted semistructured interviews with implementation specialists serving priority practices to detect emergent themes relevant to maintenance. RESULTS: Maintaining EHR technology will require ongoing expert technical support indefinitely beyond implementation to address upgrades and security needs. Maintaining meaningful use for quality improvement will require ongoing support for leadership and change management. Priority practices not associated with larger systems lack access to the necessary technical expertise, financial resources, and leverage with vendors to continue alone. Rural priority practices are particularly challenged, because expertise is often not available locally. CONCLUSIONS: Priority practices, especially in rural areas, are at high risk for falling on the wrong side of a "digital divide" as payers and regulators enact increasing expectations for EHR use and information management. For those without affiliation to maintain the necessary expert staff, ongoing support will be needed for those practices to remain viable.
Keywords:
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; electronic health records; health information technology; meaningful use; primary health care; regional extension centers; rural health services; safety-net providers
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: Michelle Greiver; Jan Barnsley; Richard H Glazier; Rahim Moineddin; Bart J Harvey Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Ann Scheck McAlearney; Cynthia Sieck; Jennifer Hefner; Julie Robbins; Timothy R Huerta Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2013-10-20 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Lyle J Fagnan; Theresa L Walunas; Michael L Parchman; Caitlin L Dickinson; Katrina M Murphy; Ross Howell; Kathryn L Jackson; Margaret B Madden; James R Ciesla; Kathryn D Mazurek; Abel N Kho; Leif I Solberg Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Emily Gill; Patricia C Dykes; Robert S Rudin; Marianne Storm; Kelly McGrath; David W Bates Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Jennifer R Hemler; Jennifer D Hall; Raja A Cholan; Benjamin F Crabtree; Laura J Damschroder; Leif I Solberg; Sarah S Ono; Deborah J Cohen Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2018 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Mhairi Maskew; Jacob Bor; Cheryl Hendrickson; William MacLeod; Till Bärnighausen; Deenan Pillay; Ian Sanne; Sergio Carmona; Wendy Stevens; Matthew P Fox Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Joan Torrent-Sellens; Ángel Díaz-Chao; Ivan Soler-Ramos; Francesc Saigí-Rubió Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 5.428