Study | Critical adoption factors | Country | Practicea | Settingb | Attention levelc | Code for the critical adoption factord | Usee | Study typef |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Zheng, Padmana et al. [11] | Ease of use, time efficient, lack of relevance of the reminders, concerns about time and efficiency impacts, disruption in physician-patient communication. | USA | L | O | P | 6 | V | Q |
Berner, Detmer et al. [6] | The development of scalable, interoperable systems. Communication among clinical systems. | USA | L | NS | NS | 5 | NS | D |
Middleton, Hammond et al. [22] | Limited demonstrated value of electronic health records in practice, variability in the viability of the information systems, promotion of system standards. | USA | B | B | B | 5, 6 | NS | D |
Poissant, Pereira et al. [15] | Time for patient care, user satisfaction, accuracy of the information, overall impact on workflow, the degree of exposure to a implemented system, reception of support from clinical leaders and training support, impact of system on an ensemble of work processes and outputs. | NS | NS | NS | NS | 2, 3, 4, 6 | NS | D |
Poon, Jha et al. [27] | Lack of data standards, lack of interoperability between different data sources, negative impact of system implementation on productivity, usability issues, adaptability of the system to the different workflow patterns. | USA | B | B | B | 2, 5, 6 | NS | D |
Liu, Wyatt et al. [34] | To bring about the intended user actions or behaviour. | NS | NS | NS | NS | 6 | NS | D |
Ammenwerth, Iller et al. [24] | Usability and user friendliness of software, stability and flexibility of software, intensive user support, overall affects of the system on personnel workflow. | Germany | L | I | S | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | NS | D |
Sittig, Krall et al. [73] | Behind schedule alerts. | USA | L | B | B | 2 | M | C |
Shah, Seger et al. [4] | Accurate clinical documentation, linkage of patient information from all clinical data repositories, minimized workflow interruptions. | USA | L | O | P | 2, 4, 5, 6 | M | Q |
Ford, Menachemi et al. [2] | Influence and promote physicians' internal social networks. | USA | S | O | NS | 1 | NS | A |
Chismar and Wiley-Patton [63] | Internet applications perceived usefulness, the importance and utility of the internet technology in performing daily tasks. | USA | S | NS | NS | 6 | V | Q |
Simon, Kaushal et al. [64] | Loss of productivity. | USA | B | O | B | 6 | NS | Q |
Despont-Gros, Mueller et al. [35] | Clinical information system characteristics (information system quality, interface characteristics, information quality), use/context/environment (ease of use, perceived usefulness), process characteristics (user participation). | NS | NS | NS | NS | 6 | NS | D |
van der Meijden, Tange et al. [36] | System quality, information quality, user satisfaction, individual impact. | NS | NS | I | NS | 6 | NS | D |
Ash and Bates [7] | Personal concerns about workflow, one-on-one communication and training. | USA | B | B | NS | 1,2,3,4 | NS | A |
James [8] | Complexity of the systems and lack of data standards that permit exchange of clinical data, privacy concerns and legal barriers. | Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand | S | O | P | 5 | NS | D |
Callen, Braithwaite et al. [46] | Individual differences in terms of collaborative activities, authority level among physicians, and attitudes to -and use of- computers at the point of care. | Australia | L | I | S | 1, 6 | M | C |
Chismar and Wiley-Patton [65] | Usefulness and job relevance. | USA | B | NS | S | 6 | V | Q |
Hollingworth, Devine et al. [3] | Detrimental impact on workflow. | USA | L | O | S | 2 | M | C |
Jerome, Giuse et al. [75] | Clinical workflow, newsletter services. | USA | L | O | P | 1, 2 | V | A |
Joos, Chen et al. [25] | Communication among physicians, remote access, system speed, system efficiency, computer skill, computer-based documentation. | USA | L | O | P | 1, 3, 4, 6 | NS | D |
Linder, Schnipper et al. [43] | Falling behind schedule, usability issues, concern about losing data, feeling that using the computer in front of the patient is rude. | USA | L | O | P | 2, 6 | M | C |
Dixon and Stewart [44] | Ability and willingness to transfer knowledge and skills from one task to another, work knowledge. | Canada | NS | O | P | 2, 6 | V | C |
Rouf, Chumley et al. [28] | Perform more complete histories and documentation; receive significantly more feedback from their preceptors on their electronic charts than on paper charts; concerns about the potential impact of the EHR on their ability to conduct the doctor-patient encounter. | USA | L | B | P | 2, 4, 6 | M | D |
Saleem, Patterson et al. [26] | Integration of system to workflow, the ability to document system problems and receive prompt administrator feedback, poor usability. | USA | L | O | P | 1, 2, 3, 6 | M | D |
Sequist, Cullen et al. [74] | Decreasing in the amount of time available to talk with patients, clinical productivity loss, available technical support. | USA | L | O | P | 2, 3 | M | C |
Teich, Osheroff et al. [5] | Usability problems, lack of integration to important data from the system, uneven availability and management of best-practice system knowledge. | USA | L | O | P | 3, 4, 5, 6 | NS | D |
Terry, Thorpe et al. [31] | The presence of a champion, training, the readiness of health care providers to accept the system. | Canada | L | O | P | 3, 4, 6 | NS | D |
Zaidi, Marriott et al. [60] | System easy to learn, easy to show others how to use the system, easy to find additional information, and easy to use it within their daily workflow. | Australia | L | NS | NS | 2, 6 | M | Q |
Krall and Sittig [47] | System ease of satisfying for work activities, and degree to which it support or disrupt workflow. | USA | L | O | P | 2, 6 | M | C |
Krall and Sittig [29] | User centered design system, system perceived usefulness, alert or reminder must appear either at the appropriate time for consideration and action, or in a manner in which the user can determine if and when to evaluate and respond to it. | USA | L | O | P | 2, 6 | M | D |
Aarts, Doorewaard et al. [53] | Compatibility of the system with the workflow, attitude of the users to information systems. | Germany | L | NS | NS | 2, 6 | M | A |
Ash, Lyman et al. [45] | System usability, training, support, and time (compatibility with the workflow), communication among physicians. | USA | L | I | S | 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 | M | C |
Audet, Doty et al. [79] | Lack of standard for information systems. | USA | B | NS | NS | 5 | NS | C |
Bates, Cohen et al. [77] | Promote use of standards for data and systems; develop systems that communicate with each other. | USA | B | NS | NS | 5 | NS | D |
Christensen and Grimsmo [48] | To find methods that can make a better representation of information in large patient records, prevent electronic patient records from contributing to increased administrative workload of physicians. | Norway | L | O | P | 2, 6 | V | C |
Clayton, Narus et al. [52] | The perceived value of enhanced communications; the system functionality, response time and reliability; patient load of the physician in system learning phase. | USA | L | O | P | 1, 2, 6 | V | A |
Gadd and Penrod [54] | Demonstration of value-added for the effort required to use electronic medical record, and its ability to facilitate efficient clinical workflows without negative effects. | USA | L | O | S | 2, 6 | NS | A |
Granlien and Simonsen [78] | Poor integration with the general practitioners' existing IT systems. | Denmark | S | O | P | 5 | V | D |
Halamka, Aranow et al. [33] | Interoperability limitations, lost productivity. | USA | L | B | B | 5, 6 | B | D |
Kern, Barrón et al. [49] | Provide higher quality ambulatory care. | USA | S | O | P | 6 | V | C |
Leung, Yu et al. [62] | Lack of technical support in case of system failure, lack of knowledge and perceived difficulty in learning new technology, lack of perceived benefits from computerization of clinical practice. | Hong Kong | NS | NS | NS | 3, 6 | NS | Q |
Lo, Newmark et al. [55] | Time and workflow concerns. | USA | L | O | S | 2, 6 | V | A |
Melles, Cooper et al. [37] | The flexibility of a computer interface, the speed and efficiency of a clinical computer system. | USA | L | O | S | 6 | NS | D |
Menachemi, Ettel et al. [61] | The time needed to data entry in a system, the disruption of workflow, the lack of uniform data standards within the industry. | USA | B | B | B | 2, 5, 6 | NS | Q |
Nilasena and Lincoln [58] | Focus on the end users' preferences in creating forms or screens to document care. | USA | L | O | S | 6 | V | E |
Palm, Colombet et al. [57] | Overall service quality of the clinical information system. | France | L | I | S | 6 | NS | A |
Pare, Sicotte et al. [50] | Psychological ownership of a clinical information system. | Canada | L | NS | NS | 6 | V | C |
Payne, Perkins et al. [32] | Application functionality, speed, note writing time requirements, data availability, training need. | USA | L | I | S | 3, 6 | NS | D |
Penrod and Gadd [51] | Improvements in quality and communications, impact on workflow. | USA | L | O | P | 1, 2, 6 | NS | A |
Rodriguez, Murillo et al. [59] | Usability concerns in the graphical user interface of a system. | USA | L | NS | NS | 6 | NS | E |
Rosenbloom, Grande et al. [30] | Integration of a system in the workflow, prefilled templates through simple typed entry, reuse captured notes on subsequent encounters with patients, interoperability of the system with other organization systems. | USA | L | I | S | 2, 5, 6 | V | D |
Rosenbloom, Qi et al. [56] | Systems having greater functionality, workflow considerations. | USA | L | B | S | 2, 6 | V | A |
Schade, Sullivan et al. [38] | Improved quality and consistency of care, practice efficiencies that have both timesaving and revenue generating effects, and potential shielding from malpractice claims. | UK | NS | O | P | 6 | NS | D |
Vishwanath, and Scamurra [42] | Systems tend to not be very easy to use, loss of control over business processes, inability to master the system, lack of clear usefulness | USA | NS | NS | NS | 6 | NS | D |
Stutman, Fineman et al. [39] | Frequency and utility of the alerts in a system. | USA | L | I | S | 6 | V | D |
Tamblyn, Huang et al. [40] | Level to which the patient data are complex and fragmented. | Canada | S | O | P | 6 | V | D |
Garrett, Brown et al. [41] | Usefulness and complexity of the system. | USA | B | B | NS | 6 | V | D |
Weir, Lincoln et al. [76] | Early and intensive support, and 24 hour available assistance. | USA | L | B | B | 3, 4 | V | A |
Lorenzi et al. [67] | Disturbs in workflow, electronics health records are more difficult to use than paper-based records. | USA | S | O | B | 2, 6 | NS | D |
Morton and Wiedenbeck [86] | Provide technical support in a timely manner. | USA | L | NS | NS | 3 | NS | C |
Rahimi et al. [68] | System was not adapted to their work routines; systems compatibility with professional values and needs, and its complexity of use. | Sweden | L | O | P | 2, 6 | M | C |
Thyvalikakath et al. [70] | Problematic interface and interaction designs that led to usability problems. | USA | S | I | S | 6 | NS | C |
Trivedi et al. [69] | Concerns about negative impact on workflow, potential need for duplication during the transition from paper to electronic systems of medical record keeping. | USA | L | O | S | 2, 6 | NS | C |
Trimmer et al. [66] | The formal training and assistance by coworkers, the use of system knowledge base, the ease of use of the system. | USA | L | O | P | 1, 3, 4, 6 | M | D |
DesRoches, Campbell et al. [87] | Quality of communication with other providers, timely access to medical records, avoiding medication errors, finding an electronic-records system to meet needs | USA | B | O | B | 1, 6 | NS | C |
Bates [88] | System interoperability with other applications | USA | NS | NS | NS | 5 | NS | D |
Kemper, Uren et al. [89] | No improvement in patient care or clinical outcomes, physician resistance, increase in physician workload, interference with doctor-patient relationship, inability to interface with existing systems | USA | B | O | P | 5, 6 | NS | C |