Cited by 57Electronic Health Records SystemsInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationERP Systems Implementation and Impact

Factors Influencing Outcomes of Clinical Information Systems Implementation: A Systematic Review

GRUBER, DIANNE, CUMMINGS, GRETA G., LEBLANC, LISA, SMITH, DONNA L.·2009·CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing

Abstract

Healthcare agencies spend significant resources to acquire or develop clinical information systems. However, implementation of clinical information systems often report significant failures. A systematic review of the research literature identified processes and outcomes of clinical information system implementation and factors that influenced success or failure. Of 124 original papers, 18 met the primary inclusion criteria-clinical systems implementation, healthcare facility, and outcome measures. Data extraction elements included study characteristics, outcomes, and implementation risk factors classified according to the Expanded Systems Life Cycle. The quality of each study was also assessed. Forty-nine outcomes of clinical information system implementation were identified. No single implementation strategy proved completely effective. The findings of this synthesis direct the attention of managers and decision makers to the importance of clinical context to successful implementation of clinical information systems. The highest number of factors influencing success or failure was reported during implementation and system "go-live." End-user support or lack thereof was the important factor in both successful and failed implementations, respectively. Following the Expanded Systems Life Cycle management model instead of a traditional project management approach may contribute to greater success over time, by paying particular attention to the underrecognized maintenance phase of implementation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ncn.0b013e31819f7c07

Cites

25 of 25 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
GRUBER, D., CUMMINGS, G. G., LEBLANC, L., & SMITH, D. L.
Affiliations
Alberta Health Services (CA)
Venue
CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing
Published
2009-05
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
151-163
ISSN
1538-2931 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2045492644
Cited by
56
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • CIN Computers Informatics Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
Keywords
clinical information systems, health information technology implementation, implementation success and failure, go-live, end-user support, implementation outcomes, care facility management
MeSH terms
Database Management Systems, Education, Continuing, Nursing Informatics

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