Cited by 72Electronic Health Records SystemsNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationMedical Coding and Health Information

Benefits and problems of electronic information exchange as perceived by health care professionals: an interview study

Open access
Zwaanswijk, Marieke, Verheij, Robert A, Wiesman, Floris J, Friele, Roland D·2011·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Various countries are currently implementing a national electronic patient record (n-EPR). Despite the assumed positive effects of n-EPRs, their overall adoption remains low and meets resistance from health care providers. This study aims to increase our understanding of health care providers' attitude towards the n-EPR, by investigating their perceptions of the benefits and problems of electronic information exchange in health care and the n-EPR in particular. METHODS: The study was conducted in three Dutch health care settings: acute care, diabetes care, and ambulatory mental health care. Two health care organisations were included per setting. Between January and June 2010, interviews were conducted with 17 stakeholders working in these organisations. Relevant themes were deduced by means of thematic qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Health care providers perceived electronic information exchange to promote the efficiency and quality of care. The problems they perceived in electronic information exchange mainly concerned the confidentiality and safety of information exchange and the reliability and quality of patient data. Many problems perceived by health care providers did not specifically apply to the n-EPR, but to electronic information exchange in general. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the Dutch n-EPR has mainly followed a top-down approach, thereby neglecting the fact that the perceptions and preferences of its users (health care providers) need to be addressed in order to achieve successful implementation. The results of this study provide valuable suggestions about how to promote health care providers' willingness to adopt electronic information exchange, which can be useful for other countries currently implementing an n-EPR. Apart from providing information about the benefits and usefulness of electronic information exchange, efforts should be focused on minimising the problems as perceived by health care providers. The safety and confidentiality of electronic information exchange can be improved by developing tools to evaluate the legitimacy of access to electronic records, by increasing health care providers' awareness of the need to be careful when using patient data, and by measures to limit access to sensitive patient data. Improving health care providers' recording behaviour is important to improve the reliability and quality of electronically exchanged patient data.

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 · 10.1186/1472-6963-11-256

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Other qualitative studies of EHR implementations have mainly focused on implementation barriers, system-wide challenges, or overall benefits and concerns rather than patient safety.

    “Other qualitative investigations have analyzed EHR implementations, but primarily focused on barriers to implementation, system-wide challenges, or overall benefits and concerns rather than patient safety . 35 -39”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zwaanswijk, M., Verheij, R. A., Wiesman, F. J., & Friele, R. D.
Affiliations
  • Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NL)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Tilburg University (NL)
Corresponding author
Zwaanswijk, Marieke
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2011-10-07
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
256-256
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012578357
Cited by
72
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
electronic health records, electronic information exchange, clinician attitudes, technology adoption, information confidentiality, data security, patient data quality, top-down implementation, acute care, diabetes management
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Cross-Sectional Studies, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Health Personnel, Hospital Information Systems, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Netherlands, Quality of Health Care, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Risk Assessment, Information Dissemination, Electronic Health Records

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