lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Stakeholder consensus on the purpose of clinical evaluation of electronic health records is required
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Department of Medicine and Optometry. (eHälsoinstitutet ; eHealth Institute)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0518-6196
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Department of Medicine and Optometry.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1549-2469
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Department of Medicine and Optometry.
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Department of Medicine and Optometry. (eHälsoinstitutet ; eHealth Institute)ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4295-7201
2017 (English)In: Health Policy and Technology, ISSN 2211-8837, E-ISSN 2211-8845, Vol. 6, no 2, 152-160 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective

To explore the purpose and performance of clinical evaluation of electronic health records (EHRs) among stakeholders in order to identify any need for regulatory actions or guidelines.

Methods

This was a qualitative study of information collected in semi-structured interviews (n=28) of representatives of the five largest EHR vendors in Sweden, healthcare provider IT managers, users, and representatives of national authorities.

Results

We found a difference between the stated purpose of clinical evaluation of EHRs by the authorities and the perception of the purpose by the vendors, IT managers, and the users. The respondents gave divergent answers about the medical purpose of the application: e.g. availability of data, overview and documentation, patient safety, process efficiency, decision support, a working tool, and an aid to communication and follow-up. Several vendors found it difficult to put the term clinical evaluation in its specific context, instead referring to literature reviews, risk analyses, risk-management processes, acceptance tests, test facilities, pilot tests, and proven experience.

Conclusions

Stakeholders need to agree on a mutually acceptable, consistent method to guide regulatory decisions. The lack of consensus regarding the purpose and performance of clinical evaluation of EHRs could impact negatively on a safe and efficient documentation in healthcare. Thus, there is a need for more consistent use of terms and concepts in, and a more systematic approach to, clinical evaluation of EHRs. To ensure that the implementation of IT in healthcare meets expectations, delivers the desired outcome, and does not create new problems, it should be evaluated.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2017. Vol. 6, no 2, 152-160 p.
Keyword [en]
Electronic health record, Evaluation, Healthcare, Information technology
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Research subject
Health and Caring Sciences, Health Informatics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-61309DOI: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2017.02.005ISI: 000403988700005OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-61309DiVA: diva2:1080985
Available from: 2017-03-13 Created: 2017-03-13 Last updated: 2017-07-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ericson, LisaHammar, ToraSchönström, NilsPetersson, Göran
By organisation
Department of Medicine and Optometry
In the same journal
Health Policy and Technology
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 119 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf