Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2012 May-Jun;19(3):401-6.
doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000333. Epub 2011 Aug 28.

Transitioning between ambulatory EHRs: a study of practitioners' perspectives

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Transitioning between ambulatory EHRs: a study of practitioners' perspectives

Stephanie O Zandieh et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 May-Jun.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate practitioners' expectations of, and satisfaction with, older and newer electronic health records (EHRs) after a transition.

Material and methods: Pre- and post-transition survey administered at six academic-affiliated ambulatory care practices from 2006 to 2008. Four practices transitioned to one commercial EHR and two practices to another. We compared respondents' expectations of, and satisfaction with, the newer EHR.

Results: 523 subjects were eligible: 217 were available before transition and 306 after transition. 162 pre-transition and 197 post-transition responses were received, yielding 75% and 64% response rates, respectively. Practitioners were more satisfied with the newer EHRs (64%) compared with the older (56%) (p=0.15) and a small majority (58%) were satisfied with the transition. Practitioners' satisfaction with the older EHRs for completing clinical tasks was high. The newer EHRs exceeded practitioner expectations regarding remote access (61% vs 74%; p=0.03). However, the newer EHRs did not meet practitioners' expectations regarding their ability to perform clinical tasks, or more globally, improve medication safety (81% vs 61%; p<0.001), efficiency (70% vs 44%; p<0.001), and quality of care (77% vs 67%; p=0.04).

Discussion: Most practitioners had favorable opinions about EHRs and reported overall improved satisfaction with the newer EHRs. However, practitioners' high expectations of the newer EHRs were often unmet regarding facilitation of specific clinical tasks or for improving quality, safety, and efficiency.

Conclusion: To ensure practitioners' expectations, for instance regarding improvements in medication safety, are met, vendors should develop and implement refinements in their software as practices upgrade to newer, certified EHRs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bates DW. The quality case for information technology in healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2002;2:7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bates DW. Physicians and ambulatory electronic health records. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24:1180–9 - PubMed
    1. Bates DW, Gawande AA. Improving safety with information technology. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2526–34 - PubMed
    1. Meaningful Use Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. http://www.cms.gov/EHRincentivePrograms/35_Meaningful_Use.asp (accessed 6 Oct 2010).
    1. Key Capabilities of an Electronic Health Record System: Letter Report. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10781.html (accessed 22 Jan 2007). - PubMed

Publication types