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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Impact of Computerized Physician Order Entry on Medication Error Prevention
Bates, D. W., Teich, J. M., Lee, J., Seger, D., Kuperman, G. J., Ma'Luf, N., Boyle, D., & Leape, L. (1999) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.1999.00660313 · Cited by 1,260
Cited by
The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002 · Cited by 2,669
Boonstra, A., & Broekhuis, M. (2010) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-231 · Cited by 851
Health information systems: Failure, success and improvisation
HEEKS, R. (2006) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.024 · Cited by 654
Costs and benefits of health information technology.
Shekelle, P. G., Morton, S. C., & Keeler, E. B. (2006) · doi:10.23970/ahrqepcerta132 · Cited by 501
Barriers for Adopting Electronic Health Records (EHRs) by Physicians
Ajami, S., & BagheriTadi, T. (2013) · Acta Informatica Medica · doi:10.5455/aim.2013.21.129-134 · Cited by 309
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.