Healthc Inform Res.  2015 Jul;21(3):175-183. 10.4258/hir.2015.21.3.175.

Diffusion of Electronic Medical Record Based Public Hospital Information Systems

• Cho KW
• Kim SM
• An CH
• Chae YM

• KMID: 2125186
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2015.21.3.175

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
This study was conducted to evaluate the adoption behavior of a newly developed Electronic Medical Record (EMR)-based information system (IS) at three public hospitals in Korea with a focus on doctors and nurses.
METHODS
User satisfaction scores from four performance layers were analyzed before and two times after the newly develop system was introduced to evaluate the adoption process of the IS with Rogers' diffusion theory.
RESULTS
The 'intention to use' scores, the most important indicator for determining whether or not to adopt the IS in Rogers' confirmation stage for doctors, were very high in the third survey (4.21). In addition, the scores for 'reduced medication errors', which is the key indicator for evaluating the success of the IS, increased in the third survey for both doctors and nurses. The factors influencing 'intention to use' with a high odds ratio (>1.5) were the 'frequency of attendance of user training sessions', 'mandatory use of system', 'reduced medication errors', and 'reduced medical record documentation time' for both doctors and nurses.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings show that the new EMR-based IS was well accepted by doctors. Both doctors and nurses also positively considered the effects of the new IS on their clinical environments.

Keyword

Electronic Medical Records; Information Systems; Evaluation Studies; Diffusion of Innovation; Adoption

MeSH Terms

Diffusion of Innovation
Diffusion*
Electronic Health Records*
Hospitals, Public*
Information Systems*
Korea
Medical Records
Odds Ratio

Reference

1. Cho KW, Bae SK, Ryu JH, Kim KN, An CH, Chae YM. Performance evaluation of public hospital information systems by the information system success model. Healthc Inform Res. 2015; 21(1):43–48.

2. Delone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manag Inf Syst. 2003; 19(4):9–30.

3. Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office. Performance Reference Model (PRM) version 1.0.The service component reference model (SRM) version 1.0: a foundation for government-wide improvement. Washington (DC): Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office;2013. p. 34.

4. Chung KH, Ahn JM, Hong PG. Methodology for performance evaluation of public information systems. Gwacheon: Korea Information System Development Institute;2008. p. 47–56.

5. EM Rogers. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York (NY): Free Press;2003.

6. Beiter PA, Sorscher J, Henderson CJ, Talen M. Do electronic medical record (EMR) demonstrations change attitudes, knowledge, skills or needs? Inform Prim Care. 2008; 16(3):221–227.

7. Urquhart R, Sargeant J, Porterm GA. Factors related to the implementation and use of an innovation in cancer surgery. Curr Oncol. 2011; 18(6):271–279.

8. 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.

9. Kaushal R, Shojania KG, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163(12):1409–1416.

10. Bates DW, Gawande AA. Improving safety with information technology. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348(25):2526–2534.

11. Kuperman GJ, Gibson RF. Computer physician order entry: benefits, costs, and issues. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 139(1):31–39.

12. Pare G, Raymond L, de Guinea AO, Poba-Nzaou P, Trudel MC, Marsan J, et al. Barriers to organizational adoption of EMR systems in family physician practices: a mixed-methods study in Canada. Int J Med Inform. 2014; 83(8):548–558.