Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28061781›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2017

Exploring the implementation of an electronic record into a maternity unit: a qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory.

Arabella Scantlebury, Laura Sheard, Ian Watt, Paul Cairns, John Wright, Joy Adamson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Arabella ScantleburyYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. Arabella.scantlebury@york.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3518-2740
Laura SheardBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK.
Ian WattDepartment of Health Sciences, Seebohm Rowntree Building, University of York, York, Yo10 5DD, UK.
Paul CairnsDepartment of Computer Science, University of York, York, Yo10 5GH, UK.
John WrightBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK.
Joy AdamsonInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon-Tyne, NEZ 4AX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo explore the benefits, barriers and disadvantages of implementing an electronic record system (ERS). The extent that the system has become 'normalised' into routine practice was also explored.

methodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 members of NHS staff who represented a variety of staff groups (doctors, midwives of different grades, health care assistants) and wards within a maternity unit at a NHS teaching hospital. Interviews were conducted during the first year of the phased implementation of ERS and were analysed thematically. The four mechanisms of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring) were adapted for use within the study and provided a theoretical framework to interpret the study's findings.

resultsCoherence (participants' understanding of why the ERS has been implemented) was mixed - whilst those involved in ERS implementation anticipated advantages such as improved access to information; the majority were unclear why the ERS was introduced. Participants' willingness to engage with and invest time into the ERS (cognitive participation) depended on the amount of training and support they received and their willingness to change from paper to electronic records. Collective action (the extent the ERS was used) may be influenced by whether participants perceived there to be benefits associated with the system. Whilst some individuals reported benefits such as improved legibility of records, others felt benefits were yet to emerge. The parallel use of paper and the lack of integration of electronic systems within and between the trust and other healthcare organisations hindered ERS use. When appraising the ERS (reflexive monitoring) participants perceived the system to negatively impact the patient-clinician relationship, time and patient safety.

conclusionsDespite expectations that the ERS would have a number of advantages, its implementation was perceived to have a range of disadvantages and only a limited number of 'clinical benefits'. The study highlights the complexity of implementing electronic systems and the associated longevity before they can become 'embedded' into routine practice. Through the identification of barriers to the employment of electronic systems this process could be streamlined with the avoidance of any potential detriment to clinical services.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelElectronic Health RecordsHospitals, MaternityMidwiferyPhysiciansHumansQualitative ResearchBenefitsElectronic recordsImplementationMaternityNormalisation Process TheoryPatient safety

Identifiers

PMID28061781
PMCPMC5219748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.