European Journal of Information Systems

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 681–694 | Cite as

An organizational learning perspective on the assimilation of electronic medical records among small physician practices

Special Section Article

Abstract

Small physician practices play an essential role in the healthcare delivery system but are least likely to adopt health information technologies such as electronic medical records (EMRs). Factors contributing to low adoption include investment cost, productivity loss, and lack of financial incentives. However, these factors do not explain why some small practices, which face similar challenges nonetheless assimilate EMRs, while others do not. We investigated the assimilation of EMRs from the theoretic perspective of organizational learning in a survey of small physician practices and evaluated whether characteristics associated with organizational learning barriers are related to EMR assimilation. We found that learning-related scale, related knowledge, and diversity were positively associated with small physician practices' stage of assimilation of EMR technology. Our findings suggest that some small practices are able to overcome the substantial learning barriers presented by EMRs but that others will require support to develop sufficient learning capacity. We consider implications for practice from this research and areas requiring further research.

Keywords

organizational learning adoption assimilation electronic medical records 

References

  1. Andrews JE, Pearce KA, Sydney C, Ireson C and Love M (2004) Current state of information technology use in a US primary care practice-based research network. Informatics in Primary Care 12 (1), 11–18.Google Scholar
  2. Ash JS, Gorman PN, Seshadri V and Hersh WR (2002) Computerized physician order entry in U.S. hospitals: Results of a 2002 survey. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 11 (2), 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attewell P (1992) Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing. Organization Science 3 (1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audet AM, Doty M, Peugh J, Shamasdin J, Zapert K and Schoenbaum S (2004) Information technologies: when will they make it into physicians' black bags?. Medscape General Medicine, Medscape General Medicine 6 (4), 2.Google Scholar
  5. Berthon P, Pitt L, Ewing M and Carr CL (2002) Potential research space in MIS: a framework for envisioning and evaluating research replication, extension, and generation. Information Systems Research 13 (4), 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumenthal D, Desroches C, Donelan K, Ferris T, Ashish J, Kaushal R, Rao S and Rosenbaum S (2006) Health Information Technology in the United States: The Information Base for Progress. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  7. Burt CW, Hing E and Woodwell D (2007) Electronic Medical Record Use by Office-Based Physicians: United States, 2005. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD (accessed at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/electronic/electronic.htm, February 27, 2007).Google Scholar
  8. Chau PYK (1999) On the use of construct reliability in MIS research: a meta-analysis. Information & Management 35 (4), 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaudry B, Jerome W, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, Morton S and Shekelle PG (2006) Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Annals of Internal Medicine 144 (10), E12–E22.Google Scholar
  10. Chiasson M and Davidson E (2004) Pushing the contextual envelope: developing and diffusing is theory for health information systems research. Information and Organization 14 (3), 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Comrey AL and Lee HB (1992) A First Course in Factor Analysis, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  12. Davidson E and Chiasson M (2005) Contextual influences on technology use mediation: a comparative analysis of electronic medical record systems. European Journal of Information Systems 1 (14), 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidson E and Chismar W (2007) The interaction of institutionally triggered and technology-triggered social structure change: an investigation of computerized physician order entry (CPOE). MIS Quarterly 31 (4), 739–758.Google Scholar
  14. Davidson E and Heslinga D (2007) Bridging the IT adoption gap for small physician practices: an action research study on electronic health records. Forthcoming in Information Systems Management 24 (1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davidson S and Heineke J (2007) Toward an effective strategy for the diffusion and use of clinical information systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 14 (3), 361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dillman D (2000) Mail and Internet Surveys – The Tailored Design Method, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  17. Doolan DF and Bates DW (2002) Computerized physician order entry systems in hospitals: mandates and incentives. Health Affairs 21 (4), 180–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dykes P (2006) The impact of health information technology on the role of nurses & interdisciplinary communication final results/findings – survey result (3/1/2006). Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society Analytics. LLC, Chicago, IL (accessed at: http://www.himss.org/ASP/ContentRedirector.asp?ContentID=65652, February 27, 2007).Google Scholar
  19. Ettlie JE (1980) Adequacy of stage models for decisions on adoption of innovation. Psychological Reports 46, 991–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferris N (2007) Observers detect a pause in the drive for health IT. Government Health IT (accessed at: http://www.govhealthit.com/article102728-05-07-web, July 5, 2007).
  21. Fichman RG and Kemerer CF (1997) The assimilation of software process innovations: an organizational learning perspective. Management Science 43 (10), 1345–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ford EW, Menachemi N, Phillips MT and Mshi M (2006) Predicting the adoption of electronic health records by physicians: when will health care be paperless? Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 13 (1), 106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gans D, Kralewski J, Hammons T and Dowd B (2005) Medical groups' adoption of electronic health records and information systems. Health Affairs 24 (5), 1323–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garets D and Davis M (2006) Electronic medical records vs electronic health records: yes, there is a difference. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society Analytics. LLC, Chicago, IL. (accessed at: http://www.himssanalytics.org/docs/WP_EMR_EHR.pdf, February 27, 2007).Google Scholar
  25. Grossman J and Reed M (2006) Clinical information technology gaps persist among physicians. Center for Studying Health System Change 106, 1–4.Google Scholar
  26. Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2001) Crossing the Quality Chasm: The IOM Health Care Quality Initiative. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. Johnston D, Pan E and Middleton B (2002) Finding the value in healthcare information technologies. In Center for IT Leadership. Partners HealthCare, Boston, MA, http://www.citl.org/findingTheValue.pdf, Retrieved January 6, 2007.Google Scholar
  28. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM and Donaldson MS (Eds) (1999) To Err is Human Building a Safer Health System. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  29. Lapointe L and Rivard S (2005) A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly 29 (3), 461–491.Google Scholar
  30. Lee A and Baskerville R (2003) Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research 14 (3), 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Linder J, Ma J, Bates D, Middleton B and Stafford R (2007) Electronic health record use and the quality of ambulatory care in the United States. Archive of Internal Medicine 167 (13), 1400–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Long JS (1997) Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  33. Loomis GA (2002) EMRs: still not ready for prime time. iHealthBeat California Healthcare Foundation, October 07, 2002 http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles/2002/10/7/EMRs-Still-not-ready-for-prime-time.aspx?archive=1, Retrieved December 15, 2006.
  34. McCullagh P and Nelder J (1989) Generalized Linear Models, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGee MK (2007) Urgent care. Information Week, May 28, pp 40–50.Google Scholar
  36. Menachemi N and Brooks RG (2006) EHR and other it adoption among physicians: results of a large-scale statewide analysis. Journal of Healthcare Information Management 20 (3), 79–87.Google Scholar
  37. Meyer AD and Goes JB (1988) Organizational assimilation of innovations – a multilevel contextual analysis. Academy of Management Journal 31 (4), 897–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller RH and Sim I (2004) Physicians' use of electronic medical records: barriers and solutions. Health Affairs 23 (2), 116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller RH, Sim I and Newman J (2003) Electronic medical records: lessons from small physician practices. California Healthcare Foundation (accessed at: http://www.chcf.org/documents/ihealth/EMRLessonsSmallPhyscianPractices.pdf, February 27, 2007).
  40. Olson L, Schneiderman M and Armstrong R (1993) Increasing physician survey response rates without biasing survey results. The Public Opinion Quarterly 57 (3), 1036–1041.Google Scholar
  41. Porter ME and Teisberg O (2004) Redefining competition in health care. Harvard Business Review 82 (6), 65–76.Google Scholar
  42. Reed MC and Grossman JM (2006) Growing availability of clinical information technology in physician practices. Center for Studying Health System Change, Data Bulletin No. 31.Google Scholar
  43. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of Innovations 4th edn. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Simon SR, Kaushal R, Cleary PD, Jenter CA, Volk LA, Poon EG, Orav EJ, Loc HG, Williams DH and Bates DW (2007) Correlates of electronic health record adoption in office practices: a statewide survey. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 14 (1), 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Straub DW (1989) Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quarterly 13 (2), 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Valdes I, Kibbe DC, Tolleson G, Kunik ME and Petersen LA (2004) Barriers to proliferation of electronic medical records. Informatics in Primary Care 12 (1), 3–9.Google Scholar
  47. Welsh WP, Bazarko D, Ritten K, Burgess Y, Harmon R and Sandy L (2007) Electronic health records in four community physician practices: impact on quality and cost of care. Journal of the American medical Informatics Association 14 (3), 320–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. WHEP – White House Economic Policy (2004) http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/technology/economic_policy200404/chap3.html, Retrieved December 2, 2005.
  49. WHSOU – White House State of the Union (2004) http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2004, Retrieved December 2, 2005.
  50. WHSOU – White House State of the Union (2005) http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2005, Retrieved February 3, 2005.
  51. WHSOU – White House State of the Union (2006) http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006, Retrieved February 3, 2005.
  52. Zhu K, Kraemer K and Xu S (2003) E-business adoption by European firms: a cross-country assessment of the facilitators and inhibitors. European Journal of Information Systems 12 (4), 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Technology ManagementShidler College of Business, University of Hawai'i at ManoaHonoluluU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations