Cited by 81Electronic Health Records SystemsHealth Services Management and PolicyInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Understanding Contrasting Approaches to Nationwide Implementations of Electronic Health Record Systems: England, the USA and Australia

Open access
Morrison, Zoe, Robertson, Ann, Cresswell, Kathrin, Crowe, Sarah, Sheikh, Aziz·2011·Journal of Healthcare Engineering

Abstract

As governments commit to national electronic health record (EHR) systems, there is increasing international interest in identifying effective implementation strategies. We draw on Coiera′s typology of national programmes ‐ ‘top‐down’, ‘bottom‐up’ and ‘middle‐out’ ‐ to review EHR implementation strategies in three exemplar countries: England, the USA and Australia. In comparing and contrasting three approaches, we show how different healthcare systems, national policy contexts and anticipated benefits have shaped initial strategies. We reflect on progress and likely developments in the face of continually changing circumstances. Our review shows that irrespective of the initial strategy, over time there is likely to be convergence on the negotiated, devolved middle‐out approach, which aims to balance the interests and responsibilities of local healthcare constituencies and national government to achieve national connectivity. We conclude that, accepting the current lack of empirical evidence, the flexibility offered by the middle‐out approach may make this the best initial national strategy.

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 · 10.1260/2040-2295.2.1.25

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • It is unlikely that organisations that are being encouraged to compete with each other will focus attention on interoperability without specific incentives of the kind promoted in the US and Canada.

    “This is of particular concern as it is unlikely that organisations that are being encouraged to compete with each other will focus attention on interoperability without specific incentives of the kind that are being promoted in, for example, the US and Canada.106”

    From Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: final qualitative results from prospective national evaluation in early adopter hospitals (2011) · cites this paper as [106]

    Section 2.2 (USA; page unavailable) describes centrally funded incentives for interoperability, and Section 3.4 says those incentives were introduced to promote nationwide interoperability. The copy does not establish that competing organisations are unlikely to prioritise interoperability without incentives, and the cited paper does not address Canadian incentives. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

3 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Wilson CB, American Medical Association. Available from: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/ pub/news/speeches.shtml (last accessed: 15.10.10). 2008.
  2. eHealth Insider. Urgent review of SCR consent model recommended. http://www.e-health-insider. com/news/3720/urgent_review_of_scr_consent_model_recommended last accessed 13.09.10. 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morrison, Z., Robertson, A., Cresswell, K., Crowe, S., & Sheikh, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
Venue
Journal of Healthcare Engineering
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
25-41
ISSN
  • 2040-2295 (ISSN-L)
  • 2040-2309
OpenAlex
W2149354967
Cited by
81
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 6
FWCI
14.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Healthcare Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Open Access Institutional Repository at Robert Gordon University (Robert Gordon University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
electronic health records, national health information systems, top-down implementation, bottom-up implementation, middle-out approach, health policy, comparative health systems, England, Australia

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