Table 3 User perceptions of elements of performance expectancy extracted from nurses, doctors and pharmacists’ interviews

Doctors

Doctor 1: ‘There’s a certain element of automation of AUCs and BSAs that are done that are handy and dose rounding, it probably has taken some of that load off’.

Doctor 3:

‘The protocols written in there are set in there … and are established protocols’ … ‘dose variance and looking for significant patterns of care and how you can track that it’s appropriate across a whole department, a whole service I think is definitely valuable’

Doctor 2:

‘We needed a refresh of the way we communicated, and I think the EMMS provided a trigger point to do that’.

Pharmacists

Pharmacist 4:

‘A person started chemotherapy on the ward today and now their day 22 and 23 dexamethasone has ended up for tomorrow … that should not happen, I know like it’s probably a bit of user error and computer error, but stuff like that should be prevented by the system’.

Pharmacist 1:

‘It (the system) always says, what the original or protocol dose would be, so you’d know that it’s different so that is good’.

Pharmacist 2:

‘They’re (the doctors) not properly using them, like there’s a lot of information on those templates but it’s just too hard to use them so they put all this info on the one section, so you’ve got this whole page thing but they’re only using one block’

Nurses

Nurse 3:

‘Less misinterpreting a medication, I feel it’s safer, and it’s just clear, and it’s all there for you. You can see what’s been given and what hasn’t.’

Nurse 5:

‘The provision of the protocols that are listed, they’re all in sequence so it’s quite easy and allows me to better prepared prior to a patient’s arrival’.

Nurse 2:

‘We can see the timings like if it’s given by someone, suppose I was looking after the patient and someone comes while I’m on break, so they can easily see which (medication) I’ve already given and what time’.