Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32111203›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

Advancing laboratory medicine in hospitals through health information exchange: a survey of specialist physicians in Canada.

Louis Raymond, Éric Maillet, Marie-Claude Trudel, Josianne Marsan, Ana Ortiz de Guinea, Guy Paré

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Louis RaymondUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, Canada.
Éric MailletUniversité de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.
Marie-Claude TrudelHEC Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
Josianne MarsanUniversité Laval, Quebec City, Canada.
Ana Ortiz de GuineaHEC Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
Guy ParéResearch Chair in Digital Health, HEC Montréal, 3000, Côte-Sainte-Catherine Road, Montréal, Québec, H3T 2A7, Canada. guy.pare@hec.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-7425-1994

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaboratory testing occupies a prominent place in health care. Information technology systems have the potential to empower laboratory experts and to enhance the interpretation of test results in order to better support physicians in their quest for better and safer patient care. This study sought to develop a better understanding of which laboratory information exchange (LIE) systems and features specialist physicians are using in hospital settings to consult their patients' laboratory test results, and what benefit they derive from such use.

methodsAs part of a broader research program on the use of health information exchange systems for laboratory medicine in Quebec, Canada, this study was designed as on online survey. Our sample is composed of 566 specialist physicians working in hospital settings, out of the 1512 physicians who responded to the survey (response rate of 17%). Respondents are representative of the targeted population of specialist physicians in terms of gender, age and hospital location.

resultsWe first observed that 80% of the surveyed physicians used the province-wide interoperable electronic health records (iEHR) system and 93% used a laboratory results viewer (LRV) to consult laboratory test results and most (72%) use both systems to retrieve lab results. Next, our findings reveal important differences in the capabilities available in each type of system and in the use of these capabilities. Third, there are differences in the nature of the perceived benefits obtained from the use of each of these two systems. Last, the extent of use of an LRV is strongly influenced by the IT artefact itself (i.e., the hospital's LRV available capabilities) while the use of the provincial iEHR system is influenced by its organizational context (i.e. the hospital's size and location).

conclusionsThe main contribution of this study lies in its insights into the role played by context in shaping physicians' choices about which laboratory information exchange systems to adopt and which features to use, and the different perceptions they have about benefits arising from such use. One related implication for practice is that success of LIE initiatives should not be solely assessed with basic usage statistics.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesSpecializationFemaleHealth Information ExchangeHospitalsHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansQuebecSurveys and QuestionnairesHospitalInformation systemsLaboratory information exchangeLaboratory medicineOnline survey researchPerceived benefitsSpecialist physician

Identifiers

PMID32111203
PMCPMC7048105

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.