Cited by 24Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

Brief review: Adoption of electronic medical records to enhance acute pain management

Goldstein, David H., Phelan, Rachel, Wilson, Rosemary, Ross-White, Amanda, VanDenKerkhof, Elizabeth G., Penning, John P., Jaeger, Melanie·2014·Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine physician barriers to adopting electronic medical records (EMRs) as well as anesthesiologists' experiences with the EMRs used by the acute pain management service at two tertiary care centres in Canada.Source We first review the recent literature to determine if physician barriers to adoption are changing given the exponential growth of information technology and the evolving healthcare environment. We next report on institutional experience from two academic health sciences centres regarding the challenges they encountered over the past ten years in developing and implementing an electronic medical record system for acute pain management.Principal findings The key identified barriers to adoption of EMRs are financial, technological, and time constraints. These barriers are identical to those reported in a systematic review performed prior to 2009 and remain significant factors challenging implementation. These challenges were encountered during our institution's process of adopting EMRs specific to acute pain management. In addition, our findings emphasize the importance of physician participation in the development and implementation stages of EMRs in order to incorporate their feedback and ensure the EMR system is in keeping with their workflow.Conclusions Use of EMRs will inevitably become the standard of care; however, many barriers persist to impede their implementation and adoption. These challenges to implementation can be facilitated by a corporate strategy for change that acknowledges the barriers and provides the resources for implementation. Adoption will facilitate benefits in communication, patient management, research, and improved patient safety.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12630-013-0069-6

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Access to ongoing support to use systems was important for system use and a barrier to implementation when lacking.

    “Access to ongoing support to use systems was important for system use [21, 25, 28, 31, 37, 39, 43, 54] and a barrier to implementation when it was lacking [21].”
  • Engagement of key stakeholders in the development and selection of e-health systems and in the planning and execution of implementation processes was important for implementation through fostering a sense of ownership, confidence, acceptance, enjoyment and self-pride towards the e-health system and increasing buy-in.

    “Engagement of key stakeholders in the development and selection of e-health systems and in the planning and execution of implementation processes were important for implementation [16, 20, 28, 29, 34, 41, 44, 49–51, 53–56, 58] through fostering a sense of ownership [20, 44, 51], confidence [28], acceptance [34], enjoyment and self-pride [20] towards the e-health system and increasing buy-in [54].”
  • Demographic factors such as age, education, sex, nationality, and clinical experience may influence healthcare professionals' attitudes towards e-health systems.

    “Demographic factors such as age, education, sex, nationality, and clinical experience may influence healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards e-health systems [23, 28, 46, 56, 57];”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goldstein, D. H., Phelan, R., Wilson, R., Ross-White, A., VanDenKerkhof, E. G., Penning, J. P., & Jaeger, M.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • Ottawa Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Jaeger, Melanie
Venue
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
Published
2013-11-14
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
164-179
ISSN
  • 0832-610X (ISSN-L)
  • 1496-8975
OpenAlex
W125281953
Cited by
24
References
49
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QSpace (Queen's University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
electronic health records, acute pain management, anesthesiologists, clinical workflow, EMR implementation, patient safety, academic medical centers
MeSH terms
Anesthesiology, Canada, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Physicians, Workflow, Electronic Health Records, Acute Pain, Tertiary Care Centers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review