ArticleBMC health services research2018
The Norwegian National Summary Care Record: a qualitative analysis of doctors' use of and trust in shared patient information.
Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between thyroidea function and opioid agonist therapy: a prospective cohort study from Norway.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2026Article
- Value Propositions for Digital Shared Medication Plans to Boost Patient-Health Care Professional Partnerships: Co-Design Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
- Mapping Digital Public Health Interventions Among Existing Digital Technologies and Internet-Based Interventions to Maintain and Improve Population Health in Practice: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Older Persons' and Health Care Professionals' Design Choices When Co-Designing a Medication Plan Aiming to Promote Patient Safety: Case Study.JMIR aging · 2023Article
- Older Adults' Experiences With Participation and eHealth in Care Coordination: Qualitative Interview Study in a Primary Care Setting.Journal of participatory medicine · 2023Article
- Integrated Management Systems (IMS) to Support and Sustain Quality One Health Services: International Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic by the IMIA Primary Care Working Group.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2023Article
- Comparing International Experiences With Electronic Health Records Among Emergency Medicine Physicians in the United States and Norway: Semistructured Interview Study.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- How well is the electronic health record supporting the clinical tasks of hospital physicians? A survey of physicians at three Norwegian hospitals.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- eHealth initiatives; the relationship between project work and institutional practice.BMC health services research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis paper explores Norwegian doctors' use of and experiences with a national tool for sharing core patient health information. The summary care record (SCR; the Kjernejournal in Norwegian) is the first national system for sharing patient information among the various levels and institutions of health care throughout the country. The health authorities have invested heavily in the development, implementation and deployment of this tool, and as of 2017 all Norwegian citizens have a personalised SCR. However, as there remains limited knowledge about health professionals' use of, experiences with and opinions regarding this new tool, the purpose of this study was to explore doctors' direct SCR experiences.
methodsWe conducted 25 in-depth interviews with 10 doctors from an emergency ward, 5 doctors from an emergency clinic and 10 doctors from 5 general practitioner offices. We then transcribed, thematically coded and analysed the interviews utilising a grounded theory approach.
resultsThe SCRs contain several features for providing core patient information that is particularly relevant in acute or emergency situations; nonetheless, we found that the doctors generally used only one of the tool's six functions, namely, the pharmaceutical summary. In addition, they primarily used this summary for a few subgroups of patients, including in the emergency ward for unconscious patients, for elderly patients with multiple prescriptions and for patients with substance abuse conditions. The primary difference of the pharmaceutical summary compared with the other functions of the tool is that patient information is automatically updated from a national pharmaceutical server, while other clinically relevant functions, like the critical information category, require manual updates by the health professionals themselves, thereby potentially causing variations in the accuracy, completeness and trustworthiness of the data.
conclusionTherefore, we can assume that the popularity of the pharmaceutical summary among doctors is based on their preference to place their trust in - and therefore more often utilise - automatically updated information. In addition, the doctors' lack of trust in manually updated information might have severe implications for the future success of the SCR and for similar digital tools for sharing patient information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.