Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29625587›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

The Norwegian National Summary Care Record: a qualitative analysis of doctors' use of and trust in shared patient information.

Kari Dyb, Line Lundvoll Warth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

2 authors.

Kari DybNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, Siva Innovation Centre Breivika, Sykehusveien. 23, 9019, Tromsø, Norway. kari.dyb@ehealthresearch.no.ORCID 0000-0003-4555-3891
Line Lundvoll WarthNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, Siva Innovation Centre Breivika, Sykehusveien. 23, 9019, Tromsø, Norway.

Funding

Norwegian Centre for E-health Research 43449
6 · The paper itself

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

Information DisseminationMedical RecordsTrustAttitude of Health PersonnelEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansInterviews as TopicMaleNorwayQualitative ResearchDoctors use and experiencesImplementationInformation sharingQualitative analysisSummary care recordTrust

Identifiers

PMID29625587
PMCPMC5889579

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.