Skip to main content
Log in

User Satisfaction with Computerized Order Entry System and Its Effect on Workplace Level of Stress

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Medical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To evaluate the impact of Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) on workplace stress and overall job performance, as perceived by medical students, housestaff, attending physicians and nurses, after CPOE implementation at Penn State—Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, an academic tertiary care facility, in 2005. Using an online survey, the authors studied attitudes towards CPOE among 862 health care professionals. The main outcome measures were job performance and perceived stress levels. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Analytical Software (SAS Inc, Carey, NC). A total of 413 respondents completed the entire survey (47.9 % response rate). Respondents in the younger age group were more familiar with the system, used it more frequently, and were more satisfied with it. Interns and residents were the most satisfied groups with the system, while attending physicians expressed the least satisfaction. Attending physicians and fellows found the system least user friendly compared with other groups, and also tended to express more stress and frustration with the system. Participants with previous CPOE experience were more familiar with the system, would use the system more frequently and were more likely to perceive the system as user friendly. User satisfaction with CPOE increases by familiarity and frequent use of the system. Improvement in system characteristics and avoidance of confusing terminology and inconsistent display of data is expected to enhance user satisfaction. Training in the use of CPOE should start early, ideally integrated into medical and nursing school curricula and form a continuous, long-term and user-specific process. This is expected to increase familiarity with the system, reducing stress and leading to improved user satisfaction and to subsequent enhanced safety and efficiency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bates, D. W., Cullen, D. J., Laird, N., et al, Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA. 274:29–34, 1995, doi:10.1001/jama.274.1.29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fattinger, K., Roos, M., Vergeres, P., et al, Epidemiology of drug exposure and adverse drug reactions in two Swiss departments of internal medicine. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 49:158–167, 2000, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2125.2000.00132.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bates, D. W., Spell, N., Cullen, D. J., et al, The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Adverse Drug Events Prevention Study Group. JAMA. 277:307–311, 1997, doi:10.1001/jama.277.4.307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kuperman, G. J., and Gibson, R. F., Computer physician order entry: benefits, costs, and issues. Ann. Intern. Med. 139:31–39, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ash, J. S., Gorman, P. N., Seshadri, V., et al, Computerized physician order entry in U.S. hospitals: results of a 2002 survey. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 11:95–99, 2004, doi:10.1197/jamia.M1427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ash, J. S., Stavri, P. Z., and Kuperman, G. J., A consensus statement on considerations for a successful CPOE implementation. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 10:229–234, 2003, doi:10.1197/jamia.M1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tierney, W. M., Overhage, J. M., McDonald, C. J., et al, Medical students’ and housestaff’s opinions of computerized order-writing. Acad. Med. 69:386–389, 1994, doi:10.1097/00001888-199405000-00013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hier, D. B., Rothschild, A., LeMaistre, A., et al, Differing faculty and housestaff acceptance of an electronic health record. Int. J. Med. Inform. 74:657–662, 2005, doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilson, J. P., Bulatao, P. T., and Rascati, K. L., Satisfaction with a computerized practitioner order-entry system at two military health care facilities. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 57:2188–2195, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lee, F., Teich, J. M., Spurr, C. D., et al, Implementation of physician order entry: user satisfaction and self-reported usage patterns. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 3:42–55, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Weiner, M., Gress, T., Thiemann, D. R., et al, Contrasting views of physicians and nurses about an inpatient computer-based provider order-entry system. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 6:234–244, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Aarts, J., Ash, J., and Berg, M., Extending the understanding of computerized physician order entry: Implications for professional collaboration, workflow and quality of care. Int. J. Med. Inform. 76(Suppl 1):4–13, 2007, doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Beuscart-Zephir, M. C., Pelayo, S., Anceaux, F., et al, Impact of CPOE on doctor–nurse cooperation for the medication ordering and administration process. Int. J. Med. Inform. 74:629–641, 2005, doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosenbloom, S. T., Talbert, D., and Aronsky, D., Clinicians’ perceptions of clinical decision support integrated into computerized provider order entry. Int. J. Med. Inform. 73:433–441, 2004, doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hatcher, M., Impact of information systems on acute care hospitals: results from a survey in the United States. J. Med. Syst. 22:379–387, 1998, doi:10.1023/A:1020614208753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Leung, G. M., Yeung, R. Y., Lai, T. Y., et al, Physicians’ perceptions towards the impact of and willingness to pay for clinical computerization in Hong Kong. Int. J. Med. Inform. 73:403–414, 2004, doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Weir, C. R., Crockett, R., Gohlinghorst, S., et al, Does user satisfaction relate to adoption behavior?: an exploratory analysis using CPRS implementation. Proc AMIA Symp:913–917, 2000.

  18. Murff, H. J., and Kannry, J., Physician satisfaction with two order entry systems. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 8:499–509, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sittig, D. F., Kuperman, G. J., Fiskio, J., Evaluating physician satisfaction regarding user interactions with an electronic medical record system. Proc AMIA Symp:400–404, 1999.

  20. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., and Mermelstein, R., A global measure of perceived stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 24:385–396, 1983, doi:10.2307/2136404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schectman, J. M., Schorling, J. B., Nadkarni, M. M., et al, Determinants of physician use of an ambulatory prescription expert system. Int. J. Med. Inform. 74:711–717, 2005, doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.05.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Poissant, L., Pereira, J., Tamblyn, R., et al, The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 12:505–516, 2005, doi:10.1197/jamia.M1700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nowinski, C. J., Becker, S. M., Reynolds, K. S., et al, The impact of converting to an electronic health record on organizational culture and quality improvement. Int. J. Med. Inform. 76(Suppl 1):174–183, 2007, doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rafnsdottir, G. L., and Gudmundsdottir, M. L., New technology and its impact on well being. Work. 22:31–39, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stahl, J. E., Egan, M. T., Goldman, J. M., et al, Introducing new technology into the operating room: measuring the impact on job performance and satisfaction. Surgery. 137:518–526, 2005, doi:10.1016/j.surg.2004.12.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Statham, A., and Bravo, E., The introduction of new technology: health implications for workers. Women Health. 16:105–129, 1990, doi:10.1300/J013v16n02_08.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yassi, A., and Miller, B., Technological change and the medical technologist: a stress survey of four biomedical laboratories in a large tertiary care hospital. Can. J. Med. Technol. 52:228–242, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Smith, M. J., Conway, F. T., and Karsh, B. T., Occupational stress in human computer interaction. Ind. Health. 37:157–173, 1999, doi:10.2486/indhealth.37.157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Arnetz, B. B., Technological stress: psychophysiological aspects of working with modern information technology. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health. 23(Suppl 3):97–103, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gardiner, M., Sexton, R., Durbridge, M., et al, The role of psychological well-being in retaining rural general practitioners. Aust. J. Rural Health. 13:149–155, 2005, doi:10.1111/j.1440-1854.2005.00677.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to Dr. Kristen Kjerulff for her expert advice, helpful suggestions and continuous encouragement. Dr. Nasrollah Ghahramani is supported by the Penn State College of Medicine Physician Scientist Award. This publication was made possible by grant number D1BTH06321-01 from the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nasrollah Ghahramani.

Appendix 1: Free text comments

Appendix 1: Free text comments

“…we frequently get paged about the order; every “minor” adjustment or correction on previous order requires finding a ‘functional’ computer, logging on, revising the order….”

“CPOE has been used as an excuse to not take verbal orders.”

“CPOE adds time to the day, and it focuses the attention of multiple people on process issues rather than patient care.”

“….. I find the CPOE tedious, slow, and unwieldy. It has made transcriptionists and secretaries out of physicians……”

“It is difficult to look up items if we do not know the correct terminology.”

“Too many pop-up warnings and messages”.

“Sometimes orders are not under a name that would be commonly used or intuitive, requiring that you memorize uncommon names. This is mostly for tests.”

“Fonts are small and data is presented inconsistently among different screens, and the locations of clicks vary widely.”

“The items in the main drop down menu (results, notes, EMAR, etc) are not in alphabetical order.”

“This CPOE is so tough that I have given up on it. If I didn’t have residents, there would be no orders, or all of mine would be verbal to the nurses. Of course, we don’t talk to the nurses anymore, because everybody is glued to a computer screen.”

“Learning curve is too steep for individuals who are already familiar with advanced computer applications. For computer neophytes it is extremely difficult.”

“We need user-specific sessions.”

“Show us what we will need to know in the real world.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ghahramani, N., Lendel, I., Haque, R. et al. User Satisfaction with Computerized Order Entry System and Its Effect on Workplace Level of Stress. J Med Syst 33, 199–205 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-008-9180-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-008-9180-6

Keywords

Navigation