Journal of Medical Systems

, 33:359 | Cite as

Health Information System Implementation: A Qualitative Meta-analysis

  • Bahlol RahimiEmail author
  • Vivian Vimarlund
  • Toomas Timpka


Healthcare information systems (HISs) are often implemented to enhance the quality of care and the degree to which it is patient-centered, as well as to improve the efficiency and safety of services. However, the outcomes of HIS implementations have not met expectations. We set out to organize the knowledge gained in qualitative studies performed in association with HIS implementations and to use this knowledge to outline an updated structure for implementation planning. A multi-disciplinary team performed the analyses in order to cover as many aspects of the primary studies as possible. We found that merely implementing an HIS will not automatically increase organizational efficiency. Strategic, tactical, and operational actions have to be taken into consideration, including management involvement, integration in healthcare workflow, establishing compatibility between software and hardware and, most importantly, user involvement, education and training. The results should be interpreted as a high-order scheme, and not a predictive theory.


Health information system Implementation Qualitative methods Meta-analysis 


  1. 1.
    Rahimi, B., and Vimarlund, V., Methods to evaluate health information systems in healthcare settings: A literature review. J. Med. Syst. 31:397–432, 2007. doi: 10.1007/s10916-007-9082-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaplan, B., Culture counts: How institutional values affect computer use. MD Comput. 17:23–26, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Der Meijden, M. J., Tange, H. J., Troost, J., and Hasman, A., Determinants of success of inpatient clinical information systems: A literature review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 10:235–243, 2003. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adi, A., Healthcare information systems: challenges of the new millennium. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, USA, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paré, G., and Elam, J. J., Introducing information technology in the clinical setting. Int. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 14:331–343, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fullerton, C., Aponte, P., Hopkins, R., Bragg, D., and Ballard, D. J., Lessons learned from pilot site implementation of an ambulatory electronic health record. Proc. (Bayl. Univ. Med. Cent.). 19:303–310, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harrison, M. I., Koppel, R., and Bar-Lev, S. H., Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care—An interactive sociotechnical analysis. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 14:542–549, 2007. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forsythe, D. E., and Buchanan, B. G., Broadening our approach to evaluating medical information systems. Proc. Annu. Symp. Comput. Appl. Med. Care. 1991:8–12, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Forsythe, D. E., Buchanan, B. G., Osheroff, J. A., and Miller, R. A., Expanding the concept of medical information: An observational study of physicians’ information needs. Comput. Biomed. Res. 25:181–200, 1992. doi: 10.1016/0010-4809(92)90020-B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCormick, J., Rodney, P., and Varcoe, C., Reinterpretations across studies: An approach to meta-analysis. Qual. Health Res. 13:933–944, 2003. doi: 10.1177/1049732303253480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finlayson, K. W., and Dixon, A., Qualitative meta-synthesis: A guide for the novice. Nurse Res. 15:59–71, 2008.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flemming, K., Synthesis of qualitative research and evidence-based nursing. Br. J. Nurs. 16:616–620, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Noblit, G. W., and Hare, R. D., Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Atkins, S., Lewin, S., Smith, H., Engel, M., Fretheim, A., and Volmink, J., Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: Lessons learnt. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 16:8–21, 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Littlejohns, P., Wyatt, J. C., and Garvican, L., Evaluating computerised health information systems: Hard lessons still to be learnt. BMJ. 326:860–863, 2003. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7394.860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruland, C. M., and Ravn, I. H., Usefulness and effects on costs and staff management of a nursing resource management information system. J. Nurs. Manag. 11:208–215, 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Törnvall, E., Wilhelmsson, S., and Wahren, L. K., Electronic nursing documentation in primary health care. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 18:310–317, 2004. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2004.00282.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malato, L. A., and Kim, S., End-user perceptions of a computerized medication system: Is there resistance to change? J. Health Hum. Serv. Adm. 27:34–55, 2004.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poon, E. G., Blumenthal, D., Jaggi, T., Honour, M. M., Bates, D. W., and Kaushal, R., Overcoming barriers to adopting and implementing computerized physician order entry systems in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff. (Millwood). 23:184–190, 2004. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.23.4.184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Odhiambo-Otieno, G. W., Evaluation of existing district health management information systems a case study of the district health systems in Kenya. Int. J. Med. Inform. 74:733–744, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.05.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bryson, M., Tidy, N., Smith, M., and Levy, S., An online survey of nurses’ perceptions, knowledge and expectations of the National Health Service modernization programme. J. Telemed. Telecare. 11:S164–66, 2005. doi: 10.1258/1357633054461732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pizziferri, L., Kittler, A. F., Volk, L. A., Honour, M. M., Gupta, S., Wang, S. , et al., Primary care physician time utilization before and after implementation of an electronic health record: A time-motion study. J. Biomed. Inform. 38:176–188, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2004.11.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kamadjeu, R. M., Tapang, E. M., and Moluh, R. N., Designing and implementing an electronic health record system in primary care practice in sub-Saharan Africa: A case study from Cameroon. Inform. Prim. Care. 13:179–186, 2005.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scott, J. T., Rundall, T. G., Vogt, T. M., and Hsu, J., Kaiser Permanente’s experience of implementing an electronic medical record: A qualitative study. BMJ. 331:1313–1316, 2005. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38638.497477.68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee, T. T., Nurses’ experiences using a nursing information system: Early stage of technology implementation. Comput. Inform. Nurs. 25:294–300, 2007. doi: 10.1097/01.NCN.0000289166.61863.0b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lapointe, L., and Rivard, S., Getting physicians to accept new information technology: Insights from case studies. CMAJ. 174:1573–1578, 2006. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050281.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paré, G., Sicotte, C., and Jacques, H., The effects of creating psychological ownership on physicians’ acceptance of clinical information systems. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 13:197–205, 2006. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Møller-Jensen, J., Lund Pedersen, I., and Simonsen, J., Measurement of the clinical usability a configurable HER. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 124:356–361, 2006.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Machan, C., Ammenwerth, E., and Schabetsberger, T., Evaluation of the electronic transmission of medical findings from hospitals to practitioners by triangulation. Methods Inf. Med. 45:225–233, 2006.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ash, J. S., Sittig, D. F., Poon, E. G., Guappone, K., Campbell, E., and Dykstra, R. H., The extent and importance of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 14:415–423, 2007. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Samoutis, G., Soteriades, E. S., Kounalakis, D. K., Zachariadou, T., Philalithis, A., and Lionis, C., Implementation of an electronic medical record system in previously computer-naïve primary care centres: A pilot study from Cyprus. Inform. Prim. Care. 15:4207–216, 2007.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rahimi, B., Moberg, A., Timpka, T., and Vimarlund, V., Implementing an integrated computerized patient record system: Toward an evidence-based information system implementation practice in healthcare. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. (in press), 2008.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Silverstone, R., and Haddon, L., Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: technical change and everyday life. In: Marshell, R., and Silverstong, R. (Eds.), Communication Design: The politics of Information and Communication TechnologyOxford University Press, Oxford, 1996.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vimarlund, V., Eriksson, H., and Timpka, T., Economic motives to use a participatory design approach in the development of public-health information systems. Medinfo. 10:768–772, 2001.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Doolan, D. F., and Bates, D. W., Computerized physician order entry systems in hospitals: Mandates and incentives. Health Aff. (Millwood). 21:180–188, 2002. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.21.4.180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Paré, G., Sicotte, C., Jaana, M., and Girouard, D., Prioritizing the risk factors influencing the success of clinical information system projects. A Delphi study in Canada. Methods Inf. Med. 47:251–259, 2008.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pilemalm, S., and Timpka, T., Third generation participatory design in health informatics-making user participation applicable to large-scale information system projects. J. Biomed. Inform. 41:327–339, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2007.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sjöberg, C., and Timpka, T., Participatory design of information systems in health care. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 5:177–183, 1998.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Faber, M. G., Design and introduction of an electronic patient record: How to involve users? Methods Inf. Med. 42:371–375, 2003.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van der Meijden, M. J., Tange, H., Troost, J., and Hasman, A., Development and implementation of an EPR: How to encourage the user? Int. J. Med. Inform. 64:173–185, 2001. doi: 10.1016/S1386-5056(01)00208-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reis, S., Hermoni, D., Van-Raalte, R., Dahan, R., and Borkan, J. M., Aggregation of qualitative studies—From theory to practice: Patient priorities and family medicine/general practice evaluations. Patient Educ. Couns. 65:214–222, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.07.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barbour, R. S., Checklist for improving rigor in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog. BMJ. 322:1115–1117, 2001. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bahlol Rahimi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Vivian Vimarlund
    • 1
  • Toomas Timpka
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information SciencesLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Department of Social MedicineUrmia University of Medical SciencesUrmiaIran
  3. 3.Department of Social MedicineLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations