Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18948344›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2008

Introduction of shared electronic records: multi-site case study using diffusion of innovation theory.

Trisha Greenhalgh, Katja Stramer, Tanja Bratan, Emma Byrne, Yara Mohammad, Jill Russell

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. State-of-art review of information diffusion models and their impact on social network vulnerabilities.Journal of King Saud University. Computer and information sciences · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Trisha GreenhalghResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Highgate Hill, London. p.greenhalgh@pcps.ucl.ac.uk
Katja Stramer
Tanja Bratan
Emma Byrne
Yara Mohammad
Jill Russell

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the introduction of a centrally stored, shared electronic patient record (the summary care record (SCR)) in England and draw wider lessons about the implementation of large scale information technology projects in health care.

designMulti-site, mixed method case study applying utilisation focused evaluation.

settingFour early adopter sites for the SCR in England-three in urban areas of relative socioeconomic deprivation and the fourth in a relatively affluent rural area. Data sources and analysis Data included 250 staff interviews, 1500 hours of ethnographic observation, interviews and focus groups with 170 patients and carers, 2500 pages of correspondence and documentary evidence, and incorporation of relevant surveys and statistics produced by others. These were analysed by using a thematic approach drawing on (and extending) a theoretical model of complex change developed in a previous systematic review. Main findings The mixed fortunes of the SCR programme in its first year were largely explained by eight interacting influences. The first was the SCR's material properties (especially technical immaturity and lack of interoperability) and attributes (especially the extent to which potential adopters believed the benefits outweighed the risks). The second was adopters' concerns (especially about workload and the ethicality of sharing "confidential" information on an implied consent model). The third influence was interpersonal influence (for example, opinion leaders, champions, facilitators), and the fourth was organisational antecedents for innovation (for example past experience with information technology projects, leadership and management capacity, effective data capture systems, slack resources). The fifth was organisational readiness for the SCR (for example, innovation-system fit, tension for change, power balances between supporters and opponents, baseline data quality). The sixth was the implementation process (including the nature of the change model and the extent to which new routines associated with the SCR aligned with existing organisational routines). The seventh influence was the nature and quality of links between different parts of the system, and the final one was the wider environment (especially the political context of the programme).

conclusionShared electronic records are not plug-in technologies. They are complex innovations that must be accepted by individual patients and staff and also embedded in organisational and inter-organisational routines. This process is heavily influenced at the micro-level by the material properties of the technology, individuals' attitudes and concerns, and interpersonal influence; at the meso-level by organisational antecedents, readiness, and operational aspects of implementation; and at the macro-level by institutional and socio-political forces. A case study approach and multi-level theoretical analysis can illuminate how contextual factors shape, enable, and constrain new, technology supported models of patient care.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationMedical Record LinkageDecision MakingEnglandHospital Information SystemsHumansMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedRural HealthUrban Health

Identifiers

PMID18948344
PMCPMC3269664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.