Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Adaptations of electronic health records to activate physicians’ knowledge: how can patient centered care be improved through technology?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Health and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The United States of America is known for the rising costs of its healthcare and declining quality of care. While the push towards the integration of the healthcare information infrastructure is seen to be an important step towards addressing problem of the rising costs of healthcare and falling quality of care, the integration of EHR (Electronic Health Records), the central component of this infrastructure, remains a challenge. It appears that physicians are at the center of this bottleneck. The literature suggests that the reasons for the limited use relate to policy, financial and usability considerations, but it does not provide an understanding of reasons for physicians’ limited interaction and adaptation of EHR. In this paper, we argue that in order to be able to use the technology to provide better healthcare, physicians need to be able to activate their knowledge through it. We investigate process of adaptations that physicians go through when trying to use electronic health records. Our findings indicate that physician’s knowledge identities need to align with the functionalities made available through the technology. We draw upon the framework of knowledge activation in order to understand how physicians use their knowledge to provide better healthcare. Following an analysis of qualitative data, collected in a case study at a hospital using interviews, this research shows how physician’s adaptations of EHR activate their knowledge for the purpose of improving healthcare provision. The key contribution of this research is in discovering the ways in which physicians’ adaptation of technology can enable knowledge activation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agarwal R, Gao G, DesRoches C. Research commentary: the digital transformation of healthcare: current status and the road ahead. Inf Syst Res. 2010;21(4):796–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson J. Clearing the way for physicians’ use of clinical information systems. Commun ACM. 1997;40(8):83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson J, Aydin C. Evaluating the impact of health care information systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13(2):380–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ash JS Factors affecting the diffusion of the computer-based patient record. J Am Med Inform Assoc Suppl, AMIA Proceedings; 1997. p. 682–686.

  5. Attewell P. Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing. Organ Sci. 1992;3(1):1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baskerville R, Myers D. Special issue on action research in information systems: making IS relevant to practice. MIS Q. 2004;28(3):329–35.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LS, Teich JM, et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA. 1999;280:1311–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Beaudry A, Pinsonneault A. Understanding user responses to information technology; a coping model of user adaptation. MIS Q. 2005;29(3):493–524.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Benveniste G. Professionalizing the organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Blumenthal D. Stimulating the adoption of health information technology. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(15):1477–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(6):Pp501–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The “Meaningful Use” Regulation for Electronic Health Records. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:501–4. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1006114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cebul RD, Love TE, Jain AK, Hebert CJ. Electronic health records and quality of diabetes care. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:825–33. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1102519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chau P, Hu K. Identifying early adopters of new IT products: a case of windows 95. Inf Manag. 1998;33:225–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chau P, Hu H. Investigating healthcare professionls’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Inf Manag. 2002;39:297–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Clifton, J. Healthcare is killing us. 2012. Retrieved from http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/151862/Healthcare-killing.aspx?utm_source=add+this&utm_medium=addthis.com&utm_campaign=sharing.

  17. DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Vogeli C, Zheng J, Rao SR, Shields AE, et al. Electronic Health Records’ Limited Successes Suggest More Targeted Uses. Health Aff. 2010;29(4):639–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Eichelberg M, Aden T, Riesmeier J, Dogac A, Laleci G. A survey and analysis of electronic healthcare record standards. ACM Comput Surv. 2005;37:4. doi:10.1145/1118890.1118891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Eisenhart K. Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev. 1989;14(2):532–59.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fichman R, Kemerer C. The assimilation of software process innovations: an organizational learning perspective. Manag Sci. 1997;43(10):1345–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fontaine P, Ross SE, Zink T, Schilling LM. Systematic review of health information exchange in primary care practices. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23:655–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ginneken AM. The computerized patient record: balancing effort and benefit. Int J Med Inform. 2002;65:97–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company; 1967.

  24. Greenhalgh T, Potts HWW, Wong G, Bark P, Swinglehurst D. Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method. Milbank Q. 2009;87(4):729–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Health Care in America (IOM). Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kellerman A, Jones S. What will it take to achieve the as yet unfulfilled promises of health information technology. Health Aff. 2013;32(1):63–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kidder T. Soul of a new machine. New York: Avon; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Linsky A, Simon SR. Medication discrepancies in integrated electronic health records. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:103–9. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Majchrzak A, Rice R, Malhotra A, King N, Ba S. Technology adaptation: the case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Q. 2000;24(4):569–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mulepo S, Akiko N, Date T. Takuji establishing an inventory-based medical equipment management system in the public sector: an experience from Uganda. Heal Technol. 2011;1:47–56. doi:10.1007/s12553-011-0002-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Niazkhani Z, Pirnejad H, Berg M, Aarts J. The impact of computerized provider order entry systems on inpatient clinical workflow: a literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(4):539–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Paul S, Ramaprasad A, Wickramasinghe N. 2012. Call for papers minitrack: technology mediated collaborations in healthcare. Retrieved from: http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu/hicss_46/TechMediatedCL.pdf.

  33. Paul S, Ramaprasad A, Wickramasinghe N. 2013. Call for papers Minitrack: Technology Mediated Collaborations in Helathcare retrieved from: http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu/hicss47/TechMediatedCL.pdf.

  34. Pizziferri L, Kittler A, Volk L, Honour 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. 2005;38:176–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Porter S. Family physicians provide feedback on electronic health records in FPM’s user satisfaction survey. Ann Fam Med Phys. 2013;11(1):84–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Qureshi S, Keen P. Activating knowledge through electronic collaboration: vanquishing the knowledge paradox. IEEE Trans Prof Commun. 2005;48(1):40–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Qureshi S, Liu M, Vogel D. A grounded theory analysis of e-collaboration effects for distributed project management. In: Sprague R, Nunamaker J, editors. Proceedings of the thirty eighth annual Hawaii international conference on systems sciences, January 3–6, 2005. Waikoloa, HI: IEEE Computer Society Press; 2005. p. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Qureshi S, Noteboom C. Adaptation in distributed projects: collaborative processes in digital natives and digital immigrants. In: Sprague R, Nunamaker J, editors. Proceedings of the thirty ninth annual Hawaii international conference on systems sciences, January, 4–7, 2006. Kauia, HI: IEEE Computer Society Press; 2006. p. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Qureshi S, Vogel D. Organizational adaptiveness in virtual teams. Group Decis Negot. 2001;10(1):27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Walsham G. Interpreting information systems in organisations. London: Wiley; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Weick K. Cosmos vs chaos: sense and nonsense in electronic contexts. Organ Dyn. 1985;14(2):51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the anonymous reviewers insightful feedback on an earlier version of this paper. The reviewer’s comments have enabled the authors to significantly improve the clarity and contribution of the reporting of their work in this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dakota State University, Madison, SD, USA

    Cherie Noteboom

  2. University of Nebraska-Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA

    Sajda Qureshi

  3. Dakota State University, PO Box 308, Elk Point, SD, 57025, USA

    Cherie Noteboom

Authors
  1. Cherie Noteboom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sajda Qureshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cherie Noteboom.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Noteboom, C., Qureshi, S. Adaptations of electronic health records to activate physicians’ knowledge: how can patient centered care be improved through technology?. Health Technol. 4, 59–73 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0072-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0072-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation