Exploring Healthcare Professionals’ Perspectives on Electronic Medical Records: A Qualitative Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- How do healthcare professionals perceive the impact of EMRs on their daily workflows and job performance?
- What are the key facilitators and barriers to EMR adoption among healthcare professionals?
- How does EMR usage influence interprofessional collaboration and patient care outcomes?
2. Related Works
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Collection
3.2. Sample and Setting
- GCUH, located in a fast-growing metropolitan area, is a large urban public hospital serving the Gold Coast region. It offers comprehensive specialist services, including emergency care, oncology, cardiology, and neurology. GCUH is also a leader in digital health integration, with extensive use of EMRs.
- RBWH, in Brisbane, is one of Australia’s largest teaching hospitals, specialising in trauma care, maternal and neonatal care, transplants, and oncology. It has a well-established EMR system supporting interdepartmental collaboration and clinical training.
3.3. Data Analysis
- Familiarisation with the data
- Generating initial codes
- Searching for themes
- Reviewing themes
- Defining and naming themes
- Producing the final report
- Familiarisation with the data: The researchers thoroughly read and re-read the data, identifying key variables influencing EMR adoption by analysing the use of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs in the interviewees’ responses.
- Coding: Concise labels (initial codes) were generated to highlight major features of the data based on the research questions. This phase involved multiple iterations, during which researchers refined the codes by adding, deleting, combining, or splitting them as necessary. Additionally, researchers provided interpretations to enhance the understanding of each code. By the end of this step, the data had been categorised into potential themes, preparing it for the next stage of analysis.
- Searching for themes: The researchers examined the coded data and interview transcripts to identify broad patterns of meaning and potential themes.
- Reviewing themes: Candidate themes were assessed against the interview transcripts to determine their relevance to the study’s objectives. Themes were finalised through iterative consensus meetings among researchers, ensuring alignment with the study’s goals. Inter-rater reliability was assessed to validate thematic coding, enhancing the credibility and dependability of the analysis. The final selection of themes was based on their recurrence in the data and their relevance to healthcare professionals’ experiences with EMRs. Consequently, some initial themes were split, merged, or discarded.
- Defining and naming themes: In this phase, researchers conducted a detailed analysis of each theme, providing a comprehensive description of its significance in addressing the study’s research objectives.
4. Results
4.1. Healthcare Providers’ Experience Regarding EMR Use in Medical Decision-Making
4.1.1. Healthcare Professionals’ Engagement with EMR System
‘By using EMR, I do not have to write on a piece of paper and I can type into well-formatted electronic forms. It can save our time to input patient data and decrease illegible hand writing.’
‘I can easily sort notes by date or type or profession. It can save my time and documentation so that I can focus on my career.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘I found it easier to flick through a paper chart and you could easily see their journey through outpatients and the number of admissions; I could quickly gauge what they were for and their duration.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘I worked with EMR when I was in Robina Hospital. I knew the potential benefits of EMR and also knew how to scan medical images and import them to the computer system. …, I did not have specific problems in working with the new EMR system and I think that it is really useful in my work.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘… Users should have computer knowledge to navigate EMR and use different EMR functions. I used different multi-function programs before using EMR in the hospital and the helped me to control EMR in my tasks.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘The EMR interface is complex to use. There are so many buttons to view the history of patients in the system. There is no complete reporting system to show the whole journey.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘Occasionally the whole program will shut down, losing anything you were doing at the time … The system cannot spell check and some staff do not read the notes after typing.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘I am worried about computer problems and viruses attacking the system. They cause loss of access to medical records in the hospital.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘I understand EMR can improve quality patient care, but let’s talk about security breaches in the system. I have a problem with my desktop computer at home and it can also happen in my office.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘It takes time to use the keyboard for typing my patients’ data into EMR. It is difficult to find the keys and navigate the system.’(Healthcare Professional)
4.1.2. Job Performance
‘EMR provides a clear record of a patients’ journey in the hospital so we can make better decisions during patients’ treatment.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘We lose documentation sometimes if it has not been saved. It’s not easy to cut and paste from each program. You need to paste into a word document from meta-vision (specific program in the hospital) and then into EMR.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘We face multiple login pages in different parts of EMR and this wastes our time. It should have one login page only.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘Data entry takes a long time because we have to convert all charts and images, and I think that this should be improved to save nurses’ time.’(Healthcare Professional)
4.1.3. Collaboration Among Various Healthcare Professionals
‘… EMR is useful software that provides a big picture of patients’ care. Everyone in our department can trace patients’ information and help their colleagues for better treatment.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘I can read my patient’s medical history in EMR that completed by other doctors. Last week, I saw allergies reactions in one record of my patient that was written by doctor in emergency department, I decided to adjust his diet according to this information from other doctors.’
‘…, accessing and managing medical data has become easier. It is easy to find suitable information and track a patient’s journey in the hospital.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘My colleague asked me about EMR functions several times. I do not have enough time and insufficient skill in EMR, and I am worried that if I help him, he will get in trouble because of my mistakes.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘I think that by using EMR we lose control over medical information, because data is shared with others and they can evaluate and modify that information.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘… when I have new patients, It is difficult to gather their previous test results, prescriptions, or other medical history. In an emergency, I have to contact the previous doctors directly to monitor my patient’s health summary.’(Healthcare Professional)
4.1.4. Quality of Care and Patient Satisfaction
‘I have a quicker response from other physicians’ staff and patients by applying EMR in my workplace. I can read a patient’s medical history more quickly than with a paper system.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘EMR provides comprehensive and easy access to medical information so that we can make better decisions and use better judgment in our tasks, and we can focus on patients’ needs in the hospital.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘Occasionally computers are down, or I don’t have computer access for some reason during patient visits.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘If the IT system goes down and notes cannot be accessed or written, I have to rewrite them and this is a waste of my time. It can be disaster in emergency situation in the hospital.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘I had some patients who complained that I was sitting at the computer and do not listen to their speech…’(Healthcare Professional)
‘It takes time to enter patients’ information into the system. Sometimes patients are uncomfortable about this situation and they like to have more active time with them.’(Healthcare Professional)
‘… My experienced shared security breaches in the computer system… He had some problems with computer freezing during using computer at home. He asked me that if doctors face these problems, is there any backup plan to retrieve information. From that date, I have tried to find more information related to security features of EMR.’(Healthcare Professional)
5. Discussion
6. Limitations
7. Implications
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Ghapanchi, A.H.; Aurum, A.; Daneshgar, F. The Impact of Process Effectiveness on User Interest in Contributing to the Open Source Software Projects. J. Softw. 2012, 7, 212–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghapanchi, A.H.; Aurum, A. The impact of project licence and operating system on the effectiveness of the defect-fixing process in open source software projects. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 2011, 8, 413–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkhatib, M.; Talaei-Khoei, A.; Ghapanchi, A. Analysis of research in healthcare data analytics. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1606.01354. [Google Scholar]
- Ghanbarzadeh, R.; Ghapanchi, A.H. A literature review on the use of three-dimensional virtual worlds in higher education. In Current and Prospective Applications of Virtual Reality in Higher Education; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 21–47. [Google Scholar]
- Vichitvanichphong, S.; Kerr, D.; Talaei-Khoei, A.; Ghapanchi, A.H. Analysis of research in adoption of assistive technologies for aged care. In Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Melbourne, Australia, 4–6 December 2013; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Ghanbarzadeh, R.; Ghapanchi, A.H.; Blumenstein, M. Characteristics of research on the application of three-dimensional immersive virtual worlds in health. In Proceedings of the Health Information Science: 4th International Conference, HIS 2015, Melbourne, Australia, 28–30 May 2015; Proceedings 4. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 213–224. [Google Scholar]
- Ghapanchi, A.H. Rallying competencies in virtual communities: A study of core processes and user interest in open source software projects. Inf. Organ. 2013, 23, 129–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghanbarzadeh, R.; Ghapanchi, A.H.; Blumenstein, M. Application areas of multi-user virtual environments in the healthcare context. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2014, 204, 38–46. [Google Scholar]
- Avgar, A.; Hitt, L.M.; Tambe, P. The effects of organisational factors on healthcare IT adoption costs: Evidence from New York nursing homes. In Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Honolulu, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Goldschmidt, P.G. HIT and MIS: Implications of health information technology and medical information systems. Commun. ACM 2005, 48, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, L. Pentagon’s $11 Billion Healthcare Record System Will Be Obsolete Before It’s Even Built. 2015. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/03/03/military-healthcare-11-billion-record-system-will-be-obsolete-before-its-even-built/ (accessed on 3 March 2015).
- Greenhalgh, T.; Hinder, S.; Stramer, K.; Bratan, T.; Russell, J. Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: Case study of HealthSpace. BMJ 2010, 341, c5814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scholl, J.; Syed-Abdul, S.; Ahmed, L.A. A case study of an EMR system at a large hospital in India: Challenges and strategies for successful adoption. J. Biomed. Inform. 2011, 44, 958–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vathanophas, V.; Pacharapha, T. Information Technology Acceptance in healthcare service: The study of Electronic Medical Record (EMR) in Thailand. In Proceedings of the PICMET’10: Technology Management for Global Economic Growth (PICMET), Phuket, Thailand, 18–22 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Najaftorkaman, M.; Ghapanchi, A.H.; Talaei-Khoei, A.; Ray, P. A Taxonomy of Antecedents to User Adoption of Health Information Systems: A Synthesis of Thirty Years of Research. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2015, 66, 576–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bates, D.W.; Leape, L.L.; Cullen, D.J.; Laird, N.; Petersen, L.A.; Teich, J.M.; Burdick, E.; Hickey, M.; Kleefield, S.; Shea, B.; et al. Effect of computerised physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA 1998, 280, 1311–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koppel, R.; Metlay, J.P.; Cohen, A.; Abaluck, B.; Localio, A.R.; Kimmel, S.E.; Strom, B.L. Role of computerised physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 2005, 293, 1197–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tang, P.C.; Ash, J.S.; Bates, D.W.; Overhage, J.M.; Sands, D.Z. Personal health records: Definitions, benefits, and strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2006, 13, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rao, S.R.; DesRoches, C.M.; Donelan, K.; Campbell, E.G.; Miralles, P.D.; Jha, A.K. Electronic health records in small physician practices: Availability, use, and perceived benefits. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2011, 18, 271–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hillestad, R.; Bigelow, J.; Bower, A.; Girosi, F.; Meili, R.; Scoville, R.; Taylor, R. Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff. 2005, 24, 1103–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Yu, P.; Shen, J. The benefits of introducing electronic health records in residential aged care facilities: A multiple case study. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2012, 81, 690–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosen, P.; Spalding, S.J.; Hannon, M.J.; Boudreau, R.M.; Kwoh, C.K. Parent satisfaction with the electronic medical record in an academic pediatric rheumatology practice. J. Med. Internet Res. 2011, 13, e40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bates, D.W.; Ebell, M.; Gotlieb, E.; Zapp, J.; Mullins, H.C. A proposal for electronic medical records in US primary care. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2003, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, Y.; Liang, H.; Wu, X.; Gong, H.; Li, B.; Zhang, Y. Effects of electronic medical record in a Chinese hospital: A time series study. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2012, 81, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paré, G.; Raymond, L.; de Guinea, A.O.; Poba-Nzaou, P.; Trudel, M.C.; Marsan, J.; Micheneau, T. Barriers to organisational adoption of EMR systems in family physician practices: A mixed-methods study in Canada. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2014, 83, 548–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Biedermann, S. Running the numbers on an EHR. Applying cost-benefit analysis in EHR adoption. J. AHIMA/Am. Health Inf. Manag. Assoc. 2010, 81, 32–36; quiz 38. [Google Scholar]
- Pinaire, K. An Overview of Barriers to the Adoption of Electronic Medical Records. Midwest MWAIS 2009 Proc. 2009, 14. [Google Scholar]
- Withrow, S. Why can’t physicians interoperate?: Barriers to adoption of EHRs. Healthc. Financ. Manag. 2008, 62, 90–96. [Google Scholar]
- Tarmizi, H.; Khazanchi, D.; Noteboom, C. Electronic Medical Records: Barriers to Adoption and Diffusion. In Proceedings of the 1st Midwest United States Association for Information Systems Conference (MWAIS06), Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 18–19 May 2006; Association for Information Systems: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2006; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Bhandari, G.; Snowdon, A. Design of a patient-centric, service-oriented health care navigation system for a local health integration network. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2012, 31, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.S.; Zhang, X.G.; Chu, J.; Suzuki, M.; Araki, K. Design and development of EMR supporting medical process management. J. Med. Syst. 2012, 36, 1193–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cotea, C. Electronic Health Record Adoption: Perceived Barriers and Facilitators; The University of Queensland Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health: Brisbane, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Asan, O.; Montague, E. Technology-mediated information sharing between patients and clinicians in primary care encounters. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2014, 33, 259–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Modi, S.; Feldman, S.S. The value of electronic health records since the health information technology for economic and clinical health act: Systematic review. JMIR Med. Inform. 2022, 10, e37283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gatiti, P.; Ndirangu, E.; Mwangi, J.; Mwanzu, A.; Ramadhani, T. Enhancing healthcare quality in hospitals through electronic health records: A systematic review. J. Health Inform. Dev. Ctries. 2021, 15. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, O.T.; Kunta, A.R.; Katoju, S.; Gheytasvand, S.; Masoumi, N.; Tavasolian, R.; Tabriz, A.A.; Hong, Y.R.; Hanna, K.; Perkins, R.; et al. Electronic Health Record Nudges and Health Care Quality and Outcomes in Primary Care: A Systematic Review. JAMA Netw. Open 2024, 7, e2432760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furukawa, M.F.; King, J.; Patel, V.; Hsiao, C.J.; Adler-Milstein, J.; Jha, A.K. Despite substantial progress in EHR adoption, health information exchange and patient engagement remain low in office settings. Health Aff. 2014, 33, 1672–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granlien, M.S.; Hertzum, M. Barriers to the Adoption and Use of an Electronic Medication Record. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval. 2012, 15, 216–227. [Google Scholar]
- Boonstra, A.; Broekhuis, M. Barriers to the acceptance of electronic medical records by physicians from systematic review to taxonomy and interventions. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2010, 10, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ben-Assuli, O. Electronic health records, adoption, quality of care, legal and privacy issues and their implementation in emergency departments. Health Policy 2014, 119, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehmann, C.U.; O’Connor, K.G.; Shorte, V.A.; Johnson, T.D. Use of Electronic Health Record Systems by Office-Based Pediatricians. Pediatrics 2015, 135, e7–e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammed, D.; Mariani, R.; Mohammed, S. Cybersecurity Challenges and Compliance Issues within the US Healthcare Sector. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Res. 2015, 5, 55–66. [Google Scholar]
- Weeks, D.L.; Keeney, B.J.; Evans, P.C.; Moore, Q.D.; Conrad, D.A. Provider Perceptions of the Electronic Health Record Incentive Programs: A Survey of Eligible Professionals Who Have and Have Not Attested to Meaningful Use. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2015, 30, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birkhead, G.S.; Klompas, M.; Shah, N.R. Uses of Electronic Health Records for Public Health Surveillance to Advance Public Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2015, 36, 345–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoshida, Y.; Imai, T.; Ohe, K. The trends in EMR and CPOE adoption in Japan under the national strategy. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2013, 82, 1004–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadel, J. NSW Health Taps Epic for Statewide Single Digital Patient Record. iTnews, 23 November 2022. Available online: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/nsw-health-taps-epic-for-statewide-single-digital-patient-record-588153 (accessed on 12 March 2025).
- Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Progress on Implementing and Using Electronic Health Record Systems; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2021. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/progress-on-implementing-and-using-electronic-health-record-systems_4f4ce846-en.html (accessed on 12 March 2025).
- Shu, T.; Liu, H.; Goss, F.R.; Yang, W.; Zhou, L.; Bates, D.W.; Liang, M. EHR adoption across China’s tertiary hospitals: A cross-sectional observational study. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2014, 83, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherry, B.J.; Ford, E.W.; Peterson, L.T. Experiences with electronic health records: Early adopters in long-term care facilities. Health Care Manag. Rev. 2011, 36, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludwick, D.; Doucette, J. Adopting electronic medical records in primary care: Lessons learned from health information systems implementation experience in seven countries. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2009, 78, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kruse, C.S.; Kristof, C.; Jones, B.; Mitchell, E.; Martinez, A. Barriers to electronic health record adoption: A systematic literature review. J. Med. Syst. 2016, 40, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alami, J.; Hammonds, C.; Hensien, E.; Khraibani, J.; Borowitz, S.; Hellems, M.; Riggs, S.L. Usability challenges with electronic health records (EHRs) during prerounding on pediatric inpatients. JAMIA Open 2022, 5, ooac018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adeleke, I.T.; Lawal, A.H.; Adio, R.A.; Adebisi, A.A. Information technology skills and training needs of health information management professionals in Nigeria: A nationwide study. Health Inf. Manag. J. 2015, 44, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ratwani, R.; Fairbanks, T.; Savage, E.; Adams, K.; Wittie, M.; Boone, E.; Hayden, A.; Barnes, J.; Hettinger, Z.; Gettinger, A. Mind the Gap. A systematic review to identify usability and safety challenges and practices during electronic health record implementation. Appl. Clin. Inform. 2016, 7, 1069–1087. [Google Scholar]
- Mensah, N.K.; Adzakpah, G.; Kissi, J.; Abdulai, K.; Taylor-Abdulai, H.; Johnson, S.B.; Opoku, C.; Hallo, C.; Boadu, R.O. Health professionals’ perceptions of electronic health records system: A mixed method study in Ghana. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2024, 24, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, E.; Lounsbury, O.; Clarke, J.; Ashrafian, H.; Darzi, A.; Neves, A.L. Patient and caregiver perceptions of electronic health records interoperability in the NHS and its impact on care quality: A focus group study. medRxiv 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngusie, H.S.; Kassie, S.Y.; Zemariam, A.B.; Walle, A.D.; Enyew, E.B.; Kasaye, M.D.; Seboka, B.T.; Mengiste, S.A. Understanding the predictors of health professionals’ intention to use electronic health record system: Extend and apply UTAUT3 model. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2024, 24, 889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rinne, S.T.; Brunner, J.; Mohr, D.C.; Bearak, A.C.; Anderson, E. Practices Supporting Electronic Health Record Transitions: Lessons from Four US Healthcare Systems. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2023, 38 (Suppl. S4), 1015–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aljarboa, S.S.; Miah, S.J. Discovering adoption barriers of Clinical Decision Support Systems in primary health care sector. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2207.11713. [Google Scholar]
- Beckmann, M.; Dittmer, K.; Jaschke, J.; Karbach, U.; Köberlein-Neu, J.; Nocon, M.; Rusniok, C.; Wurster, F.; Pfaff, H. Electronic patient record and its effects on social aspects of interprofessional collaboration and clinical workflows in hospitals (eCoCo): A mixed methods study protocol. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2021, 21, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Provenzano, M.; Cillara, N.; Curcio, F.; Pisu, M.O.; González, C.I.A.; Jiménez-Herrera, M.F. Electronic Health Record Adoption and Its Effects on Healthcare Staff: A Qualitative Study of Well-Being and Workplace Stress. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, E.; Lounsbury, O.; Clarke, J.; Ashrafian, H.; Darzi, A.; Neves, A.L. Perceptions of chief clinical information officers on the state of electronic health records systems interoperability in NHS England: A qualitative interview study. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2023, 23, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zadvinskis, I.M.; Chipps, E.; Yen, P.-Y. Exploring nurses’ confirmed expectations regarding health IT: A phenomenological study. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2014, 83, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, M. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qual. Sozialforschung/Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2010, 11, 8. [Google Scholar]
- Guest, G.; Bunce, A.; Johnson, L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006, 18, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biernacki, P.; Waldorf, D. Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol. Methods Res. 1981, 10, 141–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibbs, G.R. Qualitative Data Analysis: Explorations with NVivo; Open University: Milton Keynes, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyatzis, R.E. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Tong, A.; Sainsbury, P.; Craig, J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 2007, 19, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Malley, A.S.; Draper, K.; Gourevitch, R.; Cross, D.A.; Scholle, S.H. Electronic health records and support for primary care teamwork. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2015, 22, 426–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghapanchi, A.H.; Jafarzadeh, M.H.; Khakbaz, M.H. An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) for ERP system selection: Case of a petrochemical company. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2008, Paris, France, 14–17 December 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Khakbaz, M.H.; Ghapanchi, A.H.; Tavana, M. A multicriteria decision model for supplier selection in portfolios with interactions. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2010, 7, 351–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torkman, R.; Ghapanchi, A.H.; Ghanbarzadeh, R. Investigating Antecedents to Older Adults’ Uptake of Health Information Systems: A Quantitative Case Study of Electronic Personal Health Records. InInformatics 2025, 12, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torkman, R.; Ghapanchi, A.H.; Ghanbarzadeh, R. A Framework for Antecedents to Health Information Systems Uptake by Healthcare Professionals: An Exploratory Study of Electronic Medical Records. InInformatics 2024, 11, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jha, A.K.; Bates, D.W.; Jenter, C.; Orav, E.J.; Zheng, J.; Cleary, P.; Simon, S.R. Electronic health records: Use, barriers and satisfaction among physicians who care for black and Hispanic patients. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2009, 15, 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, R.H.; Sim, I. Physicians’ use of electronic medical records: Barriers and solutions. Health Aff. 2004, 23, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meade, B.; Buckley, D.; Boland, M. What factors affect the use of electronic patient records by Irish GPs? Int. J. Med. Inform. 2009, 78, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.; Lin, I.-C.; Roan, J. Barriers to physicians’ adoption of healthcare information technology: An empirical Study on multiple hospitals. J. Med. Syst. 2012, 36, 1965–1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vishwanath, A.; Scamurra, S.D. Barriers to the adoption of electronic health records: Using concept mapping to develop a comprehensive empirical model. Health Inform. J. 2007, 13, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winkelman, W.J.; Leonard, K.J.; Rossos, P.G. Patient-perceived usefulness of online electronic medical records: Employing grounded theory in the development of information and communication technologies for use by patients living with chronic illness. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2005, 12, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loomis, G.A.; Ries, J.S.; Saywell, R.M.; Thakker, N.R. If electronic medical records are so great, why aren’t family physicians using them? J. Fam. Pract. 2002, 51, 636–641. [Google Scholar]
- Hewitt, B. Using a Hybrid Technology Acceptance Model to Explore How Security Measures Affect the Adoption of Electronic Health Record Systems. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, CA, USA, 6–9 August 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kemper, A.R.; Uren, R.L.; Clark, S.J. Adoption of electronic health records in primary care pediatric practices. Pediatrics 2006, 118, e20–e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boaden, R.; Joyce, P. Developing the electronic health record: What about patient safety? Health Serv. Manag. Res. 2006, 19, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El-Kareh, R.; Gandhi, T.K.; Poon, E.G.; Newmark, L.P.; Ungar, J.; Lipsitz, S.; Sequist, T.D. Trends in primary care clinician perceptions of a new electronic health record. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2009, 24, 464–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xiao, L.; Cousins, G.; Courtney, B.; Hederman, L.; Fahey, T.; Dimitrov, B.D. Developing an electronic health record (EHR) for methadone treatment recording and decision support. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2011, 11, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saleem, J.J.; Russ, A.L.; Justice, C.F.; Hagg, H.; Ebright, P.R.; Woodbridge, P.A.; Doebbeling, B.N. Exploring the persistence of paper with the electronic health record. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2009, 78, 618–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walter, Z.; Lopez, M.S. Physician acceptance of information technologies: Role of perceived threat to professional autonomy. Decis. Support Syst. 2008, 46, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez Costa, C.; Menárguez-Tortosa, M.; Fernández-Breis, J.T. Clinical data interoperability based on archetype transformation. J. Biomed. Inform. 2011, 44, 869–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stream, G.R. Trends in adoption of electronic health records by family physicians in Washington State. Inform. Prim. Care 2009, 17, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Lee, J.-k. Analysis and evaluation about the barriers of the adoption and implementation of Electronic Health Record system: A comparison study between China and Korea. In Proceedings of the Information Technology in Medicine and Education (ITME), Hokkaido, Japan, 3–5 August 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Mott, S.G.; Bowman, J. Improving Patient Safety: Personalised care with digital technology. Int. J. Integr. Care 2014, 14, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacKinnon, W.; Wasserman, M. Integrated electronic medical record systems: Critical success factors for implementation. In Proceedings of the HICSS’09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Yen, P.-Y.; Bakken, S. Review of health information technology usability study methodologies. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2011, 19, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weihua, C.; Akay, M. Developing EMRs in Developing Countries. Information Technology in Biomedicine. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 2011, 15, 62–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abrahamson, K.; Anderson, J.G.; Borycki, E.M.; Kushniruk, A.W.; Malovec, S.; Espejo, A.; Anderson, M. The Impact of University Provided Nurse Electronic Medical Record Training on Health Care Organizations: An Exploratory Simulation Approach. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2015, 208, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Najaftorkaman, M.; Moradi, E.; Almutairi, D.O. Project managers’ ethical behaviors within modern organisations. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2011, 5, 11652–11655. [Google Scholar]
Themes | Hospital Administrators | Physicians | Surgeons | Registered Nurses | Social Workers | Pharmacists | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Healthcare professionals’ engagement with EMR system | 23 a | 29 | 18 | 47 | 43 | 12 | 172 (15%) |
Job performance | 38 | 86 | 27 | 52 | 15 | 31 | 249 (22%) |
Collaboration among various healthcare professionals | 79 | 49 | 30 | 128 | 32 | 6 | 324 (29%) |
Quality of care and patient satisfaction | 61 | 103 | 41 | 117 | 35 | 23 | 380 (34%) |
Total | 201 (18%) | 267 (24%) | 116 (10%) | 344 (30%) | 125 (11%) | 72 (7%) | 1125 |
Themes | Positive Feedbacks | Negative Feedbacks |
---|---|---|
Healthcare professionals’ engagement with EMR system ‘n = 67’ | (n = 46 a, 59% b of participants)
| (n = 21, 27% of participants)
|
Job performance ‘n = 38’ | (n = 22, 28% of participants)
| (n = 16, 20% of participants)
|
Collaboration among various healthcare professionals ‘n = 50’ | (n = 28, 36% of participants)
| (n = 22, 28% of participants)
|
Quality of care and patient satisfaction ‘n = 63’ | (n = 44, 56% of participants)
| (n = 19, 24% of participants)
|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Torkman, R.; Ghapanchi, A.H.; Ghanbarzadeh, R. Exploring Healthcare Professionals’ Perspectives on Electronic Medical Records: A Qualitative Study. Information 2025, 16, 236. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16030236
Torkman R, Ghapanchi AH, Ghanbarzadeh R. Exploring Healthcare Professionals’ Perspectives on Electronic Medical Records: A Qualitative Study. Information. 2025; 16(3):236. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16030236
Chicago/Turabian StyleTorkman, Reza, Amir Hossein Ghapanchi, and Reza Ghanbarzadeh. 2025. "Exploring Healthcare Professionals’ Perspectives on Electronic Medical Records: A Qualitative Study" Information 16, no. 3: 236. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16030236
APA StyleTorkman, R., Ghapanchi, A. H., & Ghanbarzadeh, R. (2025). Exploring Healthcare Professionals’ Perspectives on Electronic Medical Records: A Qualitative Study. Information, 16(3), 236. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16030236