A study of general practitioners' perspectives on electronic medical records systems in NHS Scotland

<b>Background</b> Primary care doctors in NHSScotland have been using electronic medical records within their practices routinely for many years. The Scottish Health Executive eHealth strategy (2008-2011) has recently brought radical changes to the primary care computing landscape in Scotland: an information system (GPASS) which was provided free-of-charge by NHSScotland to a majority of GP practices has now been replaced by systems provided by two approved commercial providers. The transition to new electronic medical records had to be completed nationally across all health-boards by March 2012. <p></p><b> Methods</b> We carried out 25 in-depth semi-structured interviews with primary care doctors to elucidate GPs' perspectives on their practice information systems and collect more general information on management processes in the patient surgical pathway in NHSScotland. We undertook a thematic analysis of interviewees' responses, using Normalisation Process Theory as the underpinning conceptual framework. <p></p> <b>Results</b> The majority of GPs' interviewed considered that electronic medical records are an integral and essential element of their work during the consultation, playing a key role in facilitating integrated and continuity of care for patients and making clinical information more accessible. However, GPs expressed a number of reservations about various system functionalities - for example: in relation to usability, system navigation and information visualisation. <b>Conclusion </b>Our study highlights that while electronic information systems are perceived as having important benefits, there remains substantial scope to improve GPs' interaction and overall satisfaction with these systems. Iterative user-centred improvements combined with additional training in the use of technology would promote an increased understanding, familiarity and command of the range of functionalities of electronic medical records among primary care doctors

Is There an App for That? Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and a New Environment of Conflict Prevention and Resolution

Katsh discusses the new problems that are a consequence of a new technological environment in healthcare, one that has an array of elements that makes the emergence of disputes likely. Novel uses of technology have already addressed both the problem and its source in other contexts, such as e-commerce, where large numbers of transactions have generated large numbers of disputes. If technology-supported healthcare is to improve the field of medicine, a similar effort at dispute prevention and resolution will be necessary

Adoption and non-adoption of a shared electronic summary record in England: a mixed-method case study

Publisher version: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c3111.full?sid=fcb22308-64fe-4070-9067-15a172b3aea

We are bitter, but we are better off: Case study of the implementation of an electronic health record system into a mental health hospital in England

In contrast to the acute hospital sector, there have been relatively few implementations of integrated electronic health record (EHR) systems into specialist mental health settings. The National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT) in England was the most expensive IT-based transformation of public services ever undertaken, which aimed amongst other things, to implement integrated EHR systems into mental health hospitals. This paper describes the arrival, the process of implementation, stakeholders' experiences and the local consequences of the implementation of an EHR system into a mental health hospital

A manifesto for a socio-technical approach to NHS and social care IT-enabled business change - to deliver effective high quality health and social care for all

80% of IT projects are known to fail. Adopting a socio-technical approach will help them to succeed in the future. The socio-technical proposition is simply that any work system comprises both a social system (including the staff, their working practices, job roles, culture and goals) and a technical system (the tools and technologies that support and enable work processes). These elements together form a single system comprising interacting parts. The technical and the social elements need to be jointly designed (or redesigned) so that they are congruent and support one another in delivering a better service. Focusing on one aspect alone is likely to be sub-optimal and wastes money (Clegg, 2008). Thus projects that just focus on the IT will almost always fail to deliver the full benefits

Discussing uncertainty and risk in primary care: recommendations of a multi-disciplinary panel regarding communication around prostate cancer screening.

BackgroundShared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men.ObjectiveIn July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians.DesignTwo-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes.ParticipantsSixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations).Main measuresPanelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTank(TM)). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified.Key resultsHighly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training.ConclusionsConference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers

Caring for the patient, caring for the record: an ethnographic study of 'back office' work in upholding quality of care in general practice

© 2015 Swinglehurst and Greenhalgh; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Additional file 1: Box 1. Field notes on summarising (Clover Surgery). Box 2. Extract of document prepared for GPs by summarisers at Clover Surgery. Box 3. Fieldnotes on coding incoming post, Clover (original notes edited for brevity).This work was funded by a research grant from the UK Medical Research Council (Healthcare Electronic Records in Organisations 07/133) and a National Institute of Health Research doctoral fellowship award for DS (RDA/03/07/076). The funders were not involved in the selection or analysis of data nor did they make any contribution to the content of the final manuscript

The IM&T training needs of doctors in an acute UK NHS trust

Advanced information systems are seen as a key factor in plans to modernise the delivery of healthcare. In the UK, the General Medical Council and the Information Authority have stressed the need for doctors to possess not just IT skills, but more generic Health Informatics competencies. Trust hospitals have a responsibility to ensure that clinicians in their employ have the requisite skills, knowledge and competencies to use the systems which will soon be implemented (e.g. electronic patient record systems, booking systems, prescribing systems). There is concern that the lack of formal IM&T training in senior clinicians will threaten the implementation of electronic patient record systems in the UK [1,2]. This poster reports on a training needs analysis of 116 doctors working in a UK acute hospital. Three key sets of findings emerged from the questionnaire study. Firstly, contrary to expectations, the IT skills and perceived training needs of the Senior and Junior Staff were not significantly different. Secondly, Senior doctors were better informed than the juniors about health informatics topics. Finally, all doctors defined their own training needs not in relation to Health Informatics but in terms of acquiring IT skills. Education programmes must take into account the current skills of the workforce and their perceptions of their training needs

Patients’ Perspectives on Engaging in Their Healthcare while Hospitalized

Aims and objectives To examine patients’ experiences and preferences for engaging in their healthcare while hospitalised. Background Promoting patient engagement or involvement in healthcare has become an important component of contemporary, consumer‐oriented approaches to quality care. Previous research on patient engagement highlights that preferences for engagement are not assessed while hospitalised, leading to patient role confusion and frustration. Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients from January–March 2017 to examine their experiences and preferences for engaging in their care while hospitalised on medical‐surgical units in the United States. Inductive thematic analysis was used to uncover the themes from the interview transcriptions. The reporting of research findings followed the COREQ checklist. Results Seventeen patients, eight male and nine female, aged between 19–83 years old were interviewed. Patients had a difficult time articulating how they participated in their care while hospitalised, with the majority stating there were few decisions to be made. Many patients felt that decisions were made prior to or during hospitalisation for them. Patients described their engagement through the following themes: sharing the subjective, involvement of family, information‐gathering, constraints, “I let them take care of me,” and variability. Conclusions Engagement is a dual responsibility of both nurses and patients. Patients’ experiences highlight that engagement preferences and experiences are not universal between patients, speaking to the importance of assessing patient preferences for engagement in health care upon hospital admission. Relevance to clinical practice The articulation of what patients actually experience in the hospital setting contributes to improve nursing practice by offering insight into what is important to the patient and how best to engage with them in their care. The constraints that patients reported facing related to their healthcare engagement should be used to inform the delivery of future engagement interventions in the acute care setting

Primary health care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children

This final report presents the findings from each of the phases of the Engaging Stakeholders in Identifying Priority Evidence-Practice Gaps and Strategies for Improvement in Primary Health Care (ESP) Project. This report is designed for people working in a range of roles including national and jurisdictional policy makers, managers, community-controlled organisations and government health authorities, peak bodies, clinical leaders, researchers, primary health care staff and continuous quality improvement (CQI) practitioners who may have an interest in the interpretation and use of aggregated CQI data to drive decision making. Stakeholders across services and systems that deliver Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health care (PHC) engaged in a process to analyse and interpret national continuous quality improvement (CQI) data from 132 health centres. We used a consensus process to identify priority evidence-practice gaps in child health care, based on these data. Stakeholders drew on their knowledge and experience working in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PHC to identify barriers and enablers to addressing the priority evidence- practice gaps, and to suggest strategies to overcome barriers and strengthen enablers to addressing the priority evidence-practice gaps. Important messages emerge from these findings