Cited by 31Electronic Health Records SystemsInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationMedical Coding and Health Information

Preparing the ground for the ‘paperless hospital’: A case study of medical records management in a UK outpatient services department

Open access
Waterson, Patrick, Glenn, Yolande, Eason, Ken·2012·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the study was to understand the preparations for the introduction of electronic patient record systems (EPRs) within the outpatient services department of a large acute hospital based in the UK. In particular, one of the main aims of the study was to examine in detail the likely impact of EPRs on the working practices of healthcare workers, their expectations regarding the impact of EPRs within the department and other sociotechnical aspects of the management of patient information.Methods Twenty-seven semi-structured interviews were undertaken with staff in a variety of roles that deal with the management of medical records. The interviews focused on the organisation of the medical records department and current problems (e.g., missing records). In addition, the interviews contained questions about the specific role of medical records supervisors in the administration of records, as well as pathways and expectations about EPRs more generally. The data from the interviews was analysed using a mixture of thematic and template analysis and coded using constructs from a sociotechnical model of information system implementation and adoption.Results The findings show that despite severe delays to the nationally led (NPfIT) roll-out of EPRs and associated IT infrastructure within the UK, staff attitudes within the department were broadly positive about the potential of future EPRs to deliver efficiencies (e.g., improved workflow within the department, reduced reliance on paper-based systems). One of the main influences on attitudes towards the type of EPRs that should exist within outpatients was prompted by negative reactions to the way in which NPfIT systems had been managed and attempted to be introduced in the past. A strong commitment to end-user involvement in EPRs design, together with a rejection of NPfIT, appears to have shaped attitudes towards future expectations of the adoption of new EPRs within the department. In addition, staff do not believe that a rapid change to 'paperless' working is likely to be possible.Conclusions Our findings provide further evidence that there is a need to treat the implementation of EPRs not simply as an exercise in technical system delivery, but as a larger process of sociotechnical systems change. We conclude the paper with some guidelines, the aim of which is to provide guidance regarding EPRs implementation and adoption informed by sociotechnical principles and ideas.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.10.011

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • In accordance with existing literature, evidence of actual benefits reported in this study was limited to a number of clinically orientated benefits surrounding improved information availability, accessibility and legibility.

    “In accordance with existing literature, evidence of actual benefits reported in our study were limited to a number of ‘clinically orientated’ benefits surrounding improved information availability, accessibility and legibility [19, 23, 31–34].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waterson, P., Glenn, Y., & Eason, K.
Affiliations
Loughborough University (GB)
Corresponding author
Waterson, Patrick
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-02
Volume
81
Issue
2
Pages
114-129
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2056196745
Cited by
31
References
42
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Loughborough University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
electronic health records, paperless hospital, medical records management, outpatient care, information system implementation, employee attitudes, end-user involvement, workflow, patient data management, health information technology adoption
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Belgium, Cross-Sectional Studies, United Kingdom, Medical Staff, Hospital, Outpatient Clinics, Hospital, Medical Records Systems, Computerized

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