Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 755–761 | Cite as

Challenges to EHR Implementation in Electronic- Versus Paper-based Office Practices

  • Stephanie O. Zandieh
  • Kahyun Yoon-Flannery
  • Gilad J. Kuperman
  • Daniel J. Langsam
  • Daniel Hyman
  • Rainu Kaushal
Original Article

Summary

Background

Challenges in implementing electronic health records (EHRs) have received some attention, but less is known about the process of transitioning from legacy EHRs to newer systems.

Objective

To determine how ambulatory leaders differentiate implementation approaches between practices that are currently paper-based and those with a legacy EHR system (EHR-based).

Design

Qualitative study.

Participants

Eleven practice managers and 12 medical directors all part of an academic ambulatory care network of a large teaching hospital in New York City in January to May of 2006.

Approach

Qualitative approach comparing and contrasting perceived benefits and challenges in implementing an ambulatory EHR between practice leaders from paper- and EHR-based practices. Content analysis was performed using grounded theory and ATLAS.ti 5.0.

Results

We found that paper-based leaders prioritized the following: sufficient workstations and printers, a physician information technology (IT) champion at the practice, workflow education to ensure a successful transition to a paperless medical practice, and a high existing comfort level of practitioners and support staff with IT. In contrast, EHR-based leaders prioritized: improved technical training and ongoing technical support, sufficient protection of patient privacy, and open recognition of physician resistance, especially for those who were loyal to a legacy EHR. Unlike paper-based practices, EHR-based leadership believed that comfort level with IT and adjustments to workflow changes would not be difficult challenges to overcome.

Conclusions

Leadership at paper- and EHR-based practices in 1 academic network has different priorities for implementing a new EHR. Ambulatory practices upgrading their legacy EHR have unique challenges.

KEY WORDS

electronic health records (EHR) implementations challenges ambulatory 

Abbreviations

EHR

electronic health records

IT

information technology

HIT

health information technology

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants from the United Hospital Fund and the NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital. We would particularly like to thank Dr. Mary Cooper at the New York-Presbyterian Hospital for her support of this project. This study was presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies’ 2007 annual meeting held in Toronto, Canada.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

References

  1. 1.
    Cedars-Sinai Suspends CPOE Use. Available at: http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles/2003/1/22/CedarsSinai-suspends-CPOE-use.aspx?archive=1#. Accessed January 22, 2007.
  2. 2.
    Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST, et al. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics. 2005;116:1506–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The White House: President W. Bush. Transforming Health Care: The President’s Health Information Technology Plan. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/technology. Accessed January 22, 2007.
  4. 4.
    Jha AK, Ferris TG, Donelan K, et al. How common are electronic health records in the United States? A summary of the evidence. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:w496–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ford EW, Menachemi N, Phillips MT. Predicting the adoption of electronic health records by physicians: when will health care be paperless? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:106–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hersh W. Health care information technology: progress and barriers. Jama. 2004;292:2273–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poon EG, Blumenthal D, Jaggi T, Honour MM, Bates DW, Kaushal R. Overcoming barriers to adopting and implementing computerized physician order entry systems in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23:184–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gans D, Kralewski J, Hammons T, Dowd B. Medical groups’ adoption of electronic health records and information systems. Practices are encountering greater-than-expected barriers to adopting an EHR system, but the adoption rate continues to rise. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24:1323–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Connell RT, Cho C, Shah N, Brown K, Shiffman RN. Take note(s): differential EHR satisfaction with two implementations under one roof. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11:43–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith D, Newell LM. A physician’s perspective: deploying the EMR. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2002;16:71–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ventres W, Kooienga S, Vuckovic N, Marlin R, Nygren P, Stewart V. Physicians, patients, and the electronic health record: an ethnographic analysis. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4:124–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zaroukian MH, Sierra A. Benefiting from ambulatory EHR implementation: solidarity, six sigma, and willingness to strive. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2006;20:53–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Key Capabilities of an Electronic Health Record System: Letter Report. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10781.html. Accessed January 22, 2007.
  14. 14.
    Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sidorov J. It ain’t necessarily so: the electronic health record and the unlikely prospect of reducing health care costs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:1079–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ash JS, Bates DW. Factors and forces affecting EHR system adoption: report of a 2004 ACMI discussion. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12:8–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scott JT, Rundall TG, Vogt TM, Hsu J. Kaiser Permanente’s experience of implementing an electronic medical record: a qualitative study. Br Med J. 2005;331:1313–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington DC: Institute of Medicine (IOM), National Academy of Sciences; 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bates DW. Commentary: quality, costs, privacy and electronic medical data. J Law Med Ethics. 1997;25:111–2, 82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Committee on Maintaining Privacy and Security in Health Care Applications of the National Information InfrastructureMathematics, and Applications Commission on Physical SciencesNational Research Council. For the Record: Protecting Electronic Health Information. Washington, DC: National Academy; 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Financial, Legal and Organizational Approached to Achieving Electronic Connectivity in Healthcare: Working Group on Financial, Organizational, and Legal Sustainability of Health Information Exchange. Markle Foundation. October; 2004.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bright B. Most Americans are unwilling to pay for e-mail with doctors. Wall Street Journal, 1 March 2005.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Health Information Technology Initiative: Major Accomplishments. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/privacy. Accessed January 22, 2007.
  24. 24.
    Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. Jama. 1998;280:1311–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie O. Zandieh
    • 1
  • Kahyun Yoon-Flannery
    • 2
  • Gilad J. Kuperman
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Daniel J. Langsam
    • 1
  • Daniel Hyman
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
  • Rainu Kaushal
    • 1
    • 2
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of PediatricsWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Quality AssuranceNewYork-Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical InformaticsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Ambulatory Care NetworkNewYork-Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Komansky Center for Children’s HealthNewYork-Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA
  7. 7.Division of General Internal MedicineBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations