Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29881738›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2017

Overcoming Barriers to Experience Benefits: A Qualitative Analysis of Electronic Health Records and Health Information Exchange Implementation in Local Health Departments.

Karmen S Williams, Gulzar H Shah, J P Leider, Akarti Gupta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Karmen S WilliamsGeorgia Southern University.
Gulzar H ShahJiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health.
J P LeiderGeorgia Southern University.
Akarti GuptaJiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionElectronic Health Records (EHRs) and Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) are changing surveillance and analytic operations within local health departments (LHDs) across the United States. The objective of this study was to analyze the status, benefits, barriers, and ways of overcoming challenges in the implementation of EHRs and HIEs in LHDs.

methodsThis study employed a mixed methods approach, first using the 2013 National Profile of LHDs survey to ascertain the status of EHR and HIE implementation across the US, as well as to aid in selection of respondents for the second, interview-based part of project. Next, forty-nine key-informant interviews of local health department staff were conducted. Data were coded thematically and independently by two researchers. Coding was compared and re-coded using the consensus definitions.

resultsTwenty-three percent of LHDs nationwide are using EHRs and 14 percent are using HIEs. The most frequently mentioned benefits for implementation were identified as care coordination, retrieval or managing information, and the ability to track outcomes of care. A few mentioned barriers included financial resources, resistance to change, and IT related issues during implementation. DISCUSSION: Despite financial, technical capacity, and operational constraints, leaders interviewed as part of this project were optimistic about the future of EHRs in local health departments. Recent policy changes and accreditation have implications of improving processes to affect populations served.

conclusionsOvercoming the challenges in implementing EHRs can result in increased efficiencies in surveillance and higher quality patient care and tracking. However, significant opportunity cost does exist.

Identifiers

PMID29881738
PMCPMC5983057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.