Nurses’ and midwives’ experiences of the first phase of the implementation of an electronic medical records system
Karen Wynter
A B J , Sara Holton A B , Lemai Nguyen C , Helen Sinnott D , Nilmini Wickramasinghe E F , Shane Crowe G and Bodil Rasmussen A B H I
A School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong, Vic. 3220, Australia. Email: s.holton@deakin.edu.au; bodil.rasmussen@deakin.edu.au
B Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research – Western Health Partnership, St Albans, Vic. 3021, Australia.
C Department of Information Systems and Business Analytics, Deakin Business School, Deakin University, Burwood, Vic. 3125, Australia. Email: lemai.nguyen@deakin.edu.au
D Nursing and Midwifery Informatics, Western Health, Footscray, Vic. 3011, Australia. Email: helen.sinnott@wh.org.au
E Iverson Health Innovation Research Institute, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Vic. 3122, Australia. Email: nwickramasinghe@swin.edu.au
F Centre for Health Informatics, Epworth HealthCare, Richmond, Vic. 3121, Australia.
G Nursing and Midwifery Executive, Western Health, St Albans, Vic. 3021, Australia. Email: shane.crowe@wh.org.au
H Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen 1165, Denmark.
I Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark and Steno Diabetes Center, Odense 5230, Denmark.
J Corresponding author. Email: k.wynter@deakin.edu.au
Australian Health Review 46(2) 188-196 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH21118
Submitted: 3 April 2021 Accepted: 28 May 2021 Published: 30 August 2021
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to describe nurses’ and midwives’ experiences following the first phase of the implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR) system at a large public health service in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia.
Methods Four focus groups were held 8–10 months after implementation of the EMR. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.
Results Of 39 participants, 25 were nurses (64%), 12 were midwives (31%) and two did not provide this information. The mean (±s.d.) duration of clinical experience was 15.6 ± 12.2 years (range 2–40 years). Three main themes were identified: (1) effects on workflow: although some participants reported that EMR facilitated easier access to real-time patient data, others indicated that workflow was disrupted by the EMR being slow and difficult to navigate, system outages and lack of interoperability between the EMR and other systems; (2) effects on patient care and communication: some participants reported that the EMR improved their communication with patients and reduced medication errors, whereas others reported a negative effect on patient care and communication; and (3) negative effects of the EMR on nurses’ and midwives’ personal well-being, including frustration, stress and exhaustion. These experiences were often reported in the context of cognitive workload due to having to use multiple systems simultaneously or extra work associated with EMR outages.
Conclusion Nurses’ and midwives’ experiences of the EMR were complex and mixed. Nurses and midwives require significant training and ongoing technical support in the first 12 months after implementation of an EMR system. Including nurses and midwives in the design and refinement of the EMR will ensure that the EMR aligns with their workflow.
What is known about the topic? Studies reporting nurses’ and midwives’ experiences of using EMR are scarce and mostly based in countries where whole-of-service implementations are carried out, funded by governments.
What does this paper add? Nurses and midwives perceive benefits of using an EMR relatively soon after implementation in terms of their workflow and patient care. However, in the first year after EMR implementation, nurses and midwives experience some negative effects on workflow, patient care and their own well-being. The effects on clinical workflow are further compounded by EMR downtime (scheduled and unscheduled) and hybrid systems that require users to access other technology systems alongside the EMR.
What are the implications for practitioners? In countries like Australia, whole-of-service, simultaneous implementation of EMR systems using best-available server technology may not be possible due to funding constraints. In these circumstances, nurses and midwives may initially experience increased workload and frustration. Ongoing training and technical support should be provided to nurses and midwives for several months following implementation. Including nurses and midwives in the design of the EMR will result in better alignment with their specific workflow, thus maximising benefits of EMR implementation.
Keywords: e-health, information management, quality and safety, workforce.
References
[1] Victorian Auditor-General. Delivering HealthSMART — Victoria’s whole-of-health ICT strategy, pp. No 93, Session 2006–08. 2008.[2] Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. Digitising health. Melbourne: Victorian Government; 2016.
[3] Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, et al Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff 2005; 24 1103–17.
| Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Workforce. 2018. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports-data/health-welfare-services/workforce/about [Accessed 21 September 2020]
[5] Redley B, Douglas T, Botti M. Methods used to examine technology in relation to the quality of nursing work in acute care: A systematic integrative review. J Clin Nurs 2020; 29 1477–87.
| Methods used to examine technology in relation to the quality of nursing work in acute care: A systematic integrative review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32045059PubMed |
[6] Fawdry R, Bewley S, Cumming G, Perry H. Data re-entry overload: time for a paradigm shift in maternity IT? J R Soc Med 2011; 104 405–12.
| Data re-entry overload: time for a paradigm shift in maternity IT?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21969478PubMed |
[7] Scantlebury A, Sheard L, Watt I, Cairns P, Wright J, Adamson J. Exploring the implementation of an electronic record into a maternity unit: a qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17 4
| Exploring the implementation of an electronic record into a maternity unit: a qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28061781PubMed |
[8] Kossman SP, Scheidenhelm SL. Nurses’ perceptions of the impact of electronic health records on work and patient outcomes. Comput Inform Nurs 2008; 26 69–77.
| Nurses’ perceptions of the impact of electronic health records on work and patient outcomes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18317257PubMed |
[9] Schenk E, Schleyer R, Jones CR, Fincham S, Daratha KB, Monsen KA. Impact of adoption of a comprehensive electronic health record on nursing work and caring efficacy. Comput Inform Nurs 2018; 36 331–9.
| Impact of adoption of a comprehensive electronic health record on nursing work and caring efficacy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29688905PubMed |
[10] Gomes M, Hash P, Orsolini L, Watkins A, Mazzoccoli A. Connecting professional practice and technology at the bedside: nurses’ beliefs about using an electronic health record and their ability to incorporate professional and patient-centered nursing activities in patient care. Comput Inform Nurs 2016; 34 578–86.
| Connecting professional practice and technology at the bedside: nurses’ beliefs about using an electronic health record and their ability to incorporate professional and patient-centered nursing activities in patient care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27496045PubMed |
[11] Williams C, Hamadi H, Cummings C, Zakari NMA. Information processing in electronic medical records: A survey validation. J Eval Clin Pract 2019; 25 97–103.
| Information processing in electronic medical records: A survey validation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30058777PubMed |
[12] Duffy M. Nurses and the migration to electronic health records. Am J Nurs 2015; 115 61–6.
| Nurses and the migration to electronic health records.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26600361PubMed |
[13] Darbyshire P. ‘Rage against the machine?’: nurses’ and midwives’ experiences of using Computerized Patient Information Systems for clinical information. J Clin Nurs 2004; 13 17–25.
| ‘Rage against the machine?’: nurses’ and midwives’ experiences of using Computerized Patient Information Systems for clinical information.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14687289PubMed |
[14] Graham HL, Nussdorfer D, Beal R. Nurse attitudes related to accepting electronic health records and bedside documentation. Comput Inform Nurs 2018; 36 515–20.
| Nurse attitudes related to accepting electronic health records and bedside documentation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30399004PubMed |
[15] Tubaishat A. The effect of electronic health records on patient safety: A qualitative exploratory study. Inform Health Soc Care 2019; 44 79–91.
| The effect of electronic health records on patient safety: A qualitative exploratory study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29239662PubMed |
[16] Hawley G, Jackson C, Hepworth J, Wilkinson SA. Sharing of clinical data in a maternity setting: How do paper hand-held records and electronic health records compare for completeness? BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14 650
| Sharing of clinical data in a maternity setting: How do paper hand-held records and electronic health records compare for completeness?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25528664PubMed |
[17] Kroning M. Nursing Informatics. 59 clicks in the EHR. Nurs Manage 2018; 49 10–4.
| Nursing Informatics. 59 clicks in the EHR.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29698311PubMed |
[18] Colligan L, Potts HWW, Finn CT, Sinkin RA. Cognitive workload changes for nurses transitioning from a legacy system with paper documentation to a commercial electronic health record. Int J Med Inform 2015; 84 469–76.
| Cognitive workload changes for nurses transitioning from a legacy system with paper documentation to a commercial electronic health record.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25868807PubMed |
[19] Clarke A, Adamson J, Watt I, Sheard L, Cairns P, Wright J. The impact of electronic records on patient safety: a qualitative study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016; 16 62
| The impact of electronic records on patient safety: a qualitative study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27260193PubMed |
[20] Stevenson JE, Nilsson GC, Petersson GI, Johansson PE. Nurses’ experience of using electronic patient records in everyday practice in acute/inpatient ward settings: A literature review. Health Informatics J 2010; 16 63–72.
| Nurses’ experience of using electronic patient records in everyday practice in acute/inpatient ward settings: A literature review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20413414PubMed |
[21] Nguyen L, Wickramasinghe N, Haddad P, Botti M, Redley B, Muhammad I. Exploring nurses’ reactions to electronic nursing documentation at the point of care. Inf Technol People 2017; 30 809–31.
| Exploring nurses’ reactions to electronic nursing documentation at the point of care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[22] Jolles DR, Brown WW, King KB. Electronic health records and perinatal quality: a call to midwives. J Midwifery Womens Health 2012; 57 315–20.
| Electronic health records and perinatal quality: a call to midwives.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22758354PubMed |
[23] Jackson J. Nursing work. 2019. Available at: http://jenniferjacksonrn.org/nursing-work/. [Accessed 20 May 2020]
[24] Craswell A, Moxham L, Broadbent M. Midwives’ concerns about a shift of focus to computers in maternity settings: technology invading birth. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest 2015; 25 147
[25] Hammond A, Foureur M, Homer CSE, Davis D. Space, place and the midwife: exploring the relationship between the birth environment, neurobiology and midwifery practice. Women Birth 2013; 26 277–81.
| Space, place and the midwife: exploring the relationship between the birth environment, neurobiology and midwifery practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24139678PubMed |
[26] Kossman SP. Perceptions of impact of electronic health records on nurses’ work. In Park HA, Murray P, Delaney C, eds. Consumer-Centered Computer-Supported Care for Health People. Vol 122. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2006: 337–341.
[27] Rathert C, Mittler JN, Porter TH, Fleig-Palmer M. Seven years after Meaningful Use: Physicians’ and nurses’ experiences with electronic health records. Health Care Manage Rev 2019; 44 30–40.
| Seven years after Meaningful Use: Physicians’ and nurses’ experiences with electronic health records.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28614166PubMed |
[28] Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. HealthSMART: Whole-of-health Information and Communication Technology Strategic Plan 2003–2007. 2003.
[29] Victorian Auditor-General. ICT Strategic Planning in the Health Sector, pp. No 247, Session 2014–17. 2017.
[30] Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19 349–57.
| Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17872937PubMed |
[31] Lin H-C, Chiou J-Y, Chen C-C, Yang C-W. Understanding the impact of nurses’ perception and technological capability on nurses’ satisfaction with nursing information system usage: A holistic perspective of alignment. Comput Human Behav 2016; 57 143–52.
| Understanding the impact of nurses’ perception and technological capability on nurses’ satisfaction with nursing information system usage: A holistic perspective of alignment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[32] Wisner K, Lyndon A, Chesla CA. The electronic health record’s impact on nurses’ cognitive work: An integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud 2019; 94 74–84.
| The electronic health record’s impact on nurses’ cognitive work: An integrative review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30939418PubMed |
[33] Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3 77–101.
| Using thematic analysis in psychology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[34] Eden R, Burton-Jones A, Grant J, Collins R, Staib A, Sullivan C. Digitising an Australian university hospital: qualitative analysis of staff-reported impacts. Aust Health Rev 2020; 44 677–89.
| Digitising an Australian university hospital: qualitative analysis of staff-reported impacts.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31315788PubMed |
[35] Misto K, Padula C, Bryand E, Nadeau K. Nurses’ Perception of the Impact of Electronic Documentation on the Nurse-Patient Relationship. J Nurs Care Qual 2019; 34 163–8.
| Nurses’ Perception of the Impact of Electronic Documentation on the Nurse-Patient Relationship.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29975218PubMed |
[36] Vehko T, Hypponen H, Puttonen S, et al Experienced time pressure and stress: electronic health records usability and information technology competence play a role. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2019; 19 160
| Experienced time pressure and stress: electronic health records usability and information technology competence play a role.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31412859PubMed |
[37] Bristol AA, Nibbelink C, Gephart S, Carrington J. Nurses’ Use of Positive Deviance When Encountering Electronic Health Records-Related Unintended Consequences. Nurs Adm Q 2018; 42 E1–11.
| Nurses’ Use of Positive Deviance When Encountering Electronic Health Records-Related Unintended Consequences.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29194338PubMed |
[38] Gough R, Ballardie R, Brewer P. New technology and nurses Labour & Indust: J Soc Eco Relations Work 2014; 24 9–25.
| New technology and nursesCrossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[39] Novak LL, Holden RJ, Anders SH, Hong JY, Karsh B-T. Using a sociotechnical framework to understand adaptations in health IT implementation. Int J Med Inform 2013; 82 e331–44.
| Using a sociotechnical framework to understand adaptations in health IT implementation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23562140PubMed |
[40] Jasperson JS, Carter PE, Zmud R. A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly 2005; 29 525–57.
| A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[41] Boyle DK, Baernholdt M, Adams JM, et al Improve nurses’ well-being and joy in work: Implement true interprofessional teams and address electronic health record usability issues. Nurs Outlook 2019; 67 791–7.
| Improve nurses’ well-being and joy in work: Implement true interprofessional teams and address electronic health record usability issues.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31759474PubMed |
[42] Batcheller J, Zimmermann D, Pappas S, Adams JM. Nursing’s leadership role in addressing the quadruple aim. Nurse Lead 2017; 15 203–6.
| Nursing’s leadership role in addressing the quadruple aim.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[43] McCoy MJ. Electronic medical records: caveats for users. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2012; 55 605–12.
| Electronic medical records: caveats for users.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22828093PubMed |
