Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 225

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Doctors' use of electronic medical records systems in hospitals: cross sectional survey

Open access
Lærum, Hallvard, Ellingsen, Gunnar, Faxvaag, Arild·2001·BMJ

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the use of three electronic medical records systems by doctors in Norwegian hospitals for general clinical tasks. Design: Cross sectional questionnaire survey. Semistructured telephone interviews with key staff in information technology in each hospital for details of local implementation of the systems. Setting: 32 hospital units in 19 Norwegian hospitals with electronic medical records systems. Participants: 227 (72%) of 314 hospital doctors responded, equally distributed between the three electronic medical records systems. Main outcome measures: Proportion of respondents who used the electronic system, calculated for each of 23 tasks; difference in proportions of users of different systems when functionality of systems was similar. Results: Most tasks listed in the questionnaire (15/23) were generally covered with implemented functions in the electronic medical records systems. However, the systems were used for only 2–7 of the tasks, mainly associated with reading patient data. Respondents showed significant differences in frequency of use of the different systems for four tasks for which the systems offered equivalent functionality. The respondents scored highly in computer literacy (72.2/100), and computer use showed no correlation with respondents' age, sex, or work position. User satisfaction scores were generally positive (67.2/100), with some difference between the systems. Conclusions: Doctors used electronic medical records systems for far fewer tasks than the systems supported. What is already known on this topic: Electronic information systems in health care have not undergone systematic evaluation, and few comparisons between electronic medical records systems have been made Given the information intensive nature of clinical work, electronic medical records systems should be of help to doctors for most clinical tasks What this study adds: Doctors in Norwegian hospitals reported a low level of use of all electronic medical records systems The systems were mainly used for reading patient data, and doctors used the systems for less than half of the tasks for which the systems were functional Analyses of actual use of electronic medical records provide more information than user satisfaction or functionality of such records systems

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.323.7325.1344

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 225

Metadata

Authors
Lærum, H., Ellingsen, G., & Faxvaag, A.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2001-12-08
Volume
323
Issue
7325
Pages
1344-1348
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2096366216
Cited by
225
References
1
FWCI
30.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Doctors' use of electronic medical records systems in hospitals: cross sectional survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.323.7325.1344
The paper
Lærum, H., Ellingsen, G., & Faxvaag, A. (2001). Doctors' use of electronic medical records systems in hospitals: cross sectional survey. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7325.1344

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.