C Musham1, S M Ornstein, R G Jenkins. 1. Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the National Institute of Medicine's endorsement of computer-based patient records (CPRs), the majority of family practice residency programs continue to use paper records. This study examined the perceptions of family medicine educators about CPRs to understand their limited use of computerized patient record systems. METHODS: A survey was mailed to the directors of 247 family practice residency programs; 199 were completed and returned (response rate 81%). Respondents were asked to identify their concerns about CPRs, what they perceived as the advantages and disadvantages of CPRs compared with paper records, and the likelihood that their program will implement a CPR within the next year and within the next 5 years. RESULTS: The perceived benefits of CPR were greater efficiency, accuracy, and quality in patient care. However, many respondents were concerned about cost, mechanical breakdowns, conversion hardships, training needs, and physicians' attitudes. Despite these objections, the majority of respondents reported it is ¿somewhat¿ or ¿very¿ likely that their program will implement a CPR system within the next 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Although the surveyed family medicine educators believed that CPRs offer significant benefits, they also perceived several disadvantages of converting from paper to computer-based patient records. Widespread use of CPRs among family practice programs in the near future depends on the extent to which vendors and others heighten awareness and knowledge about the benefits of CPRs and address concerns about cost, mechanical breakdowns, and transition difficulties.
BACKGROUND: Despite the National Institute of Medicine's endorsement of computer-based patient records (CPRs), the majority of family practice residency programs continue to use paper records. This study examined the perceptions of family medicine educators about CPRs to understand their limited use of computerized patient record systems. METHODS: A survey was mailed to the directors of 247 family practice residency programs; 199 were completed and returned (response rate 81%). Respondents were asked to identify their concerns about CPRs, what they perceived as the advantages and disadvantages of CPRs compared with paper records, and the likelihood that their program will implement a CPR within the next year and within the next 5 years. RESULTS: The perceived benefits of CPR were greater efficiency, accuracy, and quality in patient care. However, many respondents were concerned about cost, mechanical breakdowns, conversion hardships, training needs, and physicians' attitudes. Despite these objections, the majority of respondents reported it is ¿somewhat¿ or ¿very¿ likely that their program will implement a CPR system within the next 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Although the surveyed family medicine educators believed that CPRs offer significant benefits, they also perceived several disadvantages of converting from paper to computer-based patient records. Widespread use of CPRs among family practice programs in the near future depends on the extent to which vendors and others heighten awareness and knowledge about the benefits of CPRs and address concerns about cost, mechanical breakdowns, and transition difficulties.