Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31801518›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

How well is the electronic health record supporting the clinical tasks of hospital physicians? A survey of physicians at three Norwegian hospitals.

Thomas Roger Schopf, Bente Nedrebø, Karl Ove Hufthammer, Inderjit Kaur Daphu, Hallvard Lærum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. 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. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

5 authors.

Thomas Roger SchopfNorwegian Centre for E-health Research, University Hospital of North-Norway, P.O. Box 35, 9038, Tromsø, Norway. thomas.schopf@ehealthresearch.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5688-5045
Bente NedrebøNorwegian Board of Health Supervision, P.O. Box 231 Skøyen, 0213, Oslo, Norway.
Karl Ove HufthammerCentre for Clinical Research, Haukeland University Hospital, P.O. Box 1400, 5021, Bergen, Norway.
Inderjit Kaur DaphuSection for e-Health, Department for Research and Development, Haukeland University Hospital, P.O. Box 1400, 5021, Bergen, Norway.
Hallvard LærumThe Norwegian Directorate for e-health, P.O. Box 221 Skøyen, 0213, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe electronic health record is expected to improve the quality and efficiency of health care. Many novel functionalities have been introduced in order to improve medical decision making and communication between health care personnel. There is however limited evidence on whether these new functionalities are useful. The aim of our study was to investigate how well the electronic health record system supports physicians in performing basic clinical tasks.

methodsPhysicians of three prominent Norwegian hospitals participated in the survey. They were asked, in an online questionnaire, how well the hospital's electronic health record system DIPS supported 49 clinical tasks as well as how satisfied they were with the system in general, including the technical performance. Two hundred and eight of 402 physicians (52%) submitted a completely answered questionnaire.

resultsSeventy-two percent of the physicians had their work interrupted or delayed because the electronic health record hangs or crashes at least once a week, while 22% had experienced this problem daily. Fifty-three percent of the physicians indicated that the electronic health record is cumbersome to use and adds to their workload. The majority of physicians were satisfied with managing tests, e.g., requesting laboratory tests, reading test results and managing radiological investigations and electrocardiograms. Physicians were less satisfied with managing referrals. There was high satisfaction with some of the decision support functionalities available for prescribing drugs. This includes drug interaction alerts and drug allergy warnings, which are displayed automatically. However, physicians were less satisfied with other aspects of prescribing drugs, including getting an overview of the ongoing drug therapy.

conclusionsIn the survey physicians asked for improvements of certain electronic health record functionalities like medication, clinical workflow support including planning and better overviews. In addition, there is apparently a need to focus on system stability, number of logins, reliability and better instructions on available electronic health record features. Considerable development is needed in current electronic health record systems to improve usefulness and satisfaction.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelElectronic Health RecordsMedical Staff, HospitalWorkflowAttitude to ComputersDecision Support Systems, ClinicalFemaleHumansMaleNorwaySurveys and QuestionnairesUser-Computer InterfaceWorkloadClinical decision supportClinical taskElectronic health recordHospital physicianInformation and communication technology

Identifiers

PMID31801518
PMCPMC6894258

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.