Skip to main content

Table 1 Study facilities performance (Top: best, average and poor) and characteristics

From: Users’ perception on factors contributing to electronic medical records systems use: a focus group discussion study in healthcare facilities setting in Kenya

Facility performance position* County no Weighted mean** (%) Keph level Facility_type_category Owner type EMRs implementation dates Services EMRs mode
1 044 65 Level 2 MEDICAL CLINIC NGO 12.03.2014 CT&IL POC
2 042 62 Level 4 HOSPITALS MoH 01.12.2018 CT HYBRID
3 039 62 Level 4 HOSPITALS MoH 27.09.2013 CT HYBRID
4 042 61 Level 4 HOSPITALS MoH 01.09.2018 CT&IL POC
5 042 61 Level 3 HEALTH CENTRE MoH 01.02.2013 CT HYBRID
6 029 61 Level 3 HEALTH CENTRE MoH 04.07.2013 CT RDE
92 043 41 Level 3 HEALTH CENTRE MoH 18.09.2014 CT&HTS&IL HYBRID
93 045 40 Level 4 HOSPITALS MoH 02.07.2013 CT RDE
94 037 40 Level 4 HOSPITALS MoH 25.09.2013 CT POC
95 018 40 Level 3 HEALTH CENTRE MoH 26.05.2014 CT HYBRID
96 045 39 Level 3 HEALTH CENTRE MoH 24.06.2014 CT RDE
97 038 39 Level 3 HEALTH CENTRE MoH 04.08.2014 CT HYBRID
98 023 39 Level 2 DISPENSARY FBO 23.07.2013 CT RDE
207 037 12 Level 3 HEALTH CENTRE MoH 20.08.2014 CT HYBRID
208 038 12 Level 3 HEALTH CENTRE MoH 10.06.2013 CT HYBRID
209 037 10 Level 3 HEALTH CENTRE MoH 20.08.2014 CT HYBRID
210 029 10 Level 3 HOSPITALS MoH 10.12.2013 CT RDE
211 038 10 Level 3 HEALTH CENTRE MoH 17.04.2014 CT RDE
212 022 9 Level 2 DISPENSARY FBO 06.11.2013 CT&HTS HYBRID
213 029 9 Level 4 HOSPITALS MoH 19.12.2012 CT POC
  1. Keph Kenya essential package for health, NGO non governmental organization, MoH Ministry of Health, FBO Faith Based Organization, CT-Care and Treatment, HTS HIV counselling and Testing services, POC point of care, RDE Retrospective data entry, IL interoperability layer
  2. *Positions 1–6: best performing, 92–98: average performing and 207–213: poor performing gauged by **Weighted means of Staff system use and Patient identification ‘EMRs use’ indicators for the study period 2012–2019. Weighted mean were computed as follows: The two indicators assumed a weighting mean of 1, hence each was assigned a weight of 0.5 in order to have an unbiased mean. A summation of the weighted mean of the mean scores of the two indicators for each facility were then computed and finally ranked in descending order. The two indicators were chosen because they are the key variables that demonstrate EMRs utilization in the healthcare facilities [30]