Skip to main content

Usability Challenges and Barriers in EHR Training of Primary Care Resident Physicians

  • Conference paper

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNISA,volume 8529)

Abstract

Current EHRs require a large investment of resources for a user to reach a certain level of proficiency, which is a significant obstacle for new physicians who are not sufficiently trained by their medical schools. Beginning residents in primary care cope with a steep learning curve on EHR use due to EHRs with poor usability, which may lead to medical errors, and decreased quality of patient care. Identifying and addressing early barriers in the learning environment of residents while using an EHR can help improve overall capacity of the new physicians, and save costs for the organization. The goal of this study is to assess current usability challenges and barriers in EHR education and training program at the University of Missouri Health Care (UMHC).

Keywords

  • Electronic Medical Record
  • Electronic Health Record
  • Health Information Technology
  • Computerize Physician Order Entry System
  • Electronic Health Record Implementation

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Schoen, C., et al.: On The Front Lines Of Care: Primary Care Doctors Office Systems, Experiences, And Views In Seven Countries. Health Affairs 25(6), w555–w571 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hsiao, C.-J., Hing, E.: Use and characteristics of electronic health record systems among office-based physician practices: United States, 2001–2012. NCHS Data Brief 2012(111), 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  3. Scott, J.T., et al.: Kaiser Permanente’s experience of implementing an electronic medical record: A qualitative study. BMJ 331(7528), 6–1313 (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Koppel, R., et al.: Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA, 2005 293(10), 1197–1203 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Crabtree, B.F., et al.: Delivery of clinical preventive services in family medicine offices. Ann. Fam. Med. 3(5), 430–435 (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Ash, J.S., Berg, M., Coiera, E.: Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: The nature of patient care information system-related errors. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 11(2), 104–112 (2004)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Beuscart-Zéphir, M.C., et al.: The human factors engineering approach to biomedical informatics projects: State of the art, results, benefits and challenges. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 109–127 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Standard ISO 9241: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs), part 11: Guidance on usability (1998b)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Edsall, R.L., Adler, K.G.: The 2012 EHR User Satisfaction Survey: Responses From 3,088 Family Physicians. Family Practice Management 19(6) (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hammoud, M.M., et al.: Opportunities and challenges in integrating electronic health records into undergraduate medical education: A national survey of clerkship directors. Teach. Learn. Med. 24(3), 219–224 (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Elliott, G.J., Jones, E., Barker, P.: A grounded theory approach to modelling learnability of hypermedia authoring tools. Interacting with Computers 14(5), 547–574 (2002)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Terry, A.L., et al.: Implementing electronic health records: Key factors in primary care. Can. Fam. Physician. 54(5), 730–736 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Peled, J.U., et al.: Do electronic health records help or hinder medical education? PLoS. Med. 6(5), e1000069 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kushniruk, A.W., et al.: Exploring the relationship between training and usability: A study of the impact of usability testing on improving training and system deployment. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 143, 277–283 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  15. 2012 Annual Report. University of Missouri Health Care, Columbia, MO

    Google Scholar 

  16. MU 2011 Annual Report. MU Healthcare 2011 http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=106794 (cited April 15, 2012)

  17. University of Missouri Health Care Achieves Highest Level of Electronic Medical Record Adoption, in University of Missouri Health Care News Releases, Columbia, MO

    Google Scholar 

  18. U.S. EMR Adoption Model Trends (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stage 7 Hospitals (2012), http://www.himssanalytics.org/emram/stage7Hospitals.aspx (cited October 2012)

  20. EHR IMPLEMENTATIONSURVEY: Proactive Consideration and Planning Lead to Successful EHR Implementation. HIMSS, Chicago, IL (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Blumenthal, D., Tavenner, M.: The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records. New England Journal of Medicine 363(6), 501–504 (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Blumenthal, D.: Launching HITECH. New England Journal of Medicine 362(5), 382–385 (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Chaudhry, B., et al.: Systematic review: Impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann. Intern. Med. 144(10), 742–752 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Bates, D.W., Gawande, A.A.: Improving safety with information technology. New England Journal of Medicine 348(25), 2526–2534 (2003)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. Chaudhry, B., et al.: Systematic review: Impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Annals of Internal Medicine 144(10), 742–752 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  26. Corrigan, J.M., Greiner, A., Erickson, S.M.: Fostering Rapid Advances in Health Care: Learning from System Demonstrations (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Donaldson, M.S.: Primary care: America’s health in a new era1996. National Academies Press (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kohn, L.T.: The Institute of Medicine report on medical error: Overview and implications for pharmacy. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 58(1), 63–66 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Maguire, M.: Methods to support human-centred design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 55(4), 587–634 (2001)

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Goldzweig, C.L., et al.: Costs and benefits of health information technology: New trends from the literature. Health Affairs 28(2), w282–w293 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hillestad, R., et al.: Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Affairs 24(5), 1103–1117 (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  32. Holroyd-Leduc, J.M., et al.: The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 18(6), 732–737 (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  33. Steele, E.: EHR implementation: who benefits, who pays? Health ManagTechnol 27(7), 43–44 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Han, Y.Y., et al.: Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 116(6), 1506–1512 (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  35. Tang, P.C., Patel, V.L.: Major issues in user interface design for health professional workstations: summary and recommendations. Int. J. Biomed. Comput. 34(1-4), 139–148 (1994)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  36. Grumbach, K., Bodenheimer, T.: A Primary Care Home for Americans. JAMA: The journal of the American Medical Association 288(7), 889–893 (2002)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  37. Morrison, I., Smith, R.: Hamster health care. BMJ 321(7276), 1541–1542 (2000)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  38. Anderson, L.K., Stafford, C.J.: The “big bang” implementation: Not for the faint of heart. Computers in Nursing 20(1), 14–20 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ash, J.S., Bates, D.W.: Factors and forces affecting EHR system adoption: Report of a 2004 ACMI discussion. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 12(1), 8–12 (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  40. Brokel, J.M., Harrison, M.I.: Redesigning care processes using an electronic health record: A system’s experience. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety 35(2), 82–92 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  41. McAlearney, A.S., et al.: Moving from good to great in ambulatory electronic health record implementation. Journal for Healthcare Quality: Official Publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality 32(5), 41–50 (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  42. Whittaker, A.A., Aufdenkamp, M., Tinley, S.: Barriers and facilitators to electronic documentation in a rural hospital. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 41(3), 293–300 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  43. Yan, H., Gardner, R., Baier, R.: Beyond the focus group: Understanding physicians’ barriers to electronic medical records. Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 38(4), 184–191 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Aaronson, J.W., et al.: Electronic medical records: the family practice resident perspective. Fam. Med. 33(2), 128–132 (2001)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  45. Keenan, C.R., Nguyen, H.H., Srinivasan, M.: Electronic medical records and their impact on resident and medical student education. Acad. Psychiatry 30(6), 522–527 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  46. Terry, A.L., et al.: Adoption of electronic medical records in family practice: The providers’ perspective. Fam. Med. 41(7), 508–512 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mintz, M., et al.: Use of electronic medical records by physicians and students in academic internal medicine settings. Acad. Med. 84(12), 1698–1704 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  48. Chumley, H., et al.: First-year medical students document more pain characteristics when using an electronic health record. Fam. Med. 40(7), 462–463 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Carr, D.M.: A team approach to EHR implementation and maintenance. Nurs. Manage, 35(suppl. 5) 15–6, 24 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lorenzi, N.M., et al.: How to successfully select and implement electronic health records (EHR) in small ambulatory practice settings. Bmc. Medical Informatics and Decision Making 9(1) (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Report II: Contemporary Issues in Medicine: Medical Informatics and Population Health. Medical School Objectives Project (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Gliatto, P., Masters, P., Karani, R.: Medical student documentation in the medical record: is it a liability? Mt. Sinai. J. Med. 76(4), 357–364 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  53. Stephens, M.B., Gimbel, R.W., Pangaro, L.: Commentary: The RIME/EMR scheme: An educational approach to clinical documentation in electronic medical records. Acad. Med. 86(1), 11–14 (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  54. Cate, O., Scheele, F.: Viewpoint: Competency-Based Postgraduate Training: Can We Bridge the Gap between Theory and Clinical Practice? Academic Medicine 82(6), 542–547 (2007)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  55. Carter, J.H., American College of Physicians (2003): Electronic health records: A guide for clinicians and administrators, 2nd edn., p. 530. ACP Press. xxi, Philadelphia (2008)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kim, M.S., Clarke, M.A., Belden, J.L., Hinton, E. (2014). Usability Challenges and Barriers in EHR Training of Primary Care Resident Physicians. In: Duffy, V.G. (eds) Digital Human Modeling. Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management. DHM 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8529. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07725-3_39

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07725-3_39

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07724-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07725-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)