Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36866778›Full record

ArticleHealth information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia2024

Medical and nursing clinician perspectives on the usability of the hospital electronic medical record: A qualitative analysis.

Sheree Lloyd, Karrie Long, Yasmine Probst, Josie Di Donato, Abraham Oshni Alvandi, Jeremy Roach, Christopher Bain

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sheree LloydAustralian Institute of Health Service Management, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5135-4771
Karrie LongThe Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Yasmine ProbstUniversity of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Josie Di DonatoQueensland University of Technology (QUT Online), Brisbane City, QLD, Australia.
Abraham Oshni AlvandiThe Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Jeremy RoachStrongRoom AI, Docklands, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8759-8759
Christopher BainMonash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic medical records (EMRs) have been widely implemented in Australian hospitals. Their usability and design to support clinicians to effectively deliver and document care is essential, as is their impact on clinical workflow, safety and quality, communication, and collaboration across health systems. Perceptions of, and data about, usability of EMRs implemented in Australian hospitals are key to successful adoption.

objectiveTo explore perspectives of medical and nursing clinicians on EMR usability utilising free-text data collected in a survey.

methodQualitative analysis of one free-text optional question included in a web-based survey. Respondents included medical and nursing/midwifery professionals in Australian hospitals (85 doctors and 27 nurses), who commented on the usability of the main EMR used.

resultsThemes identified related to the status of EMR implementation, system design, human factors, safety and risk, system response time, and stability, alerts, and supporting the collaboration between healthcare sectors. Positive factors included ability to view information from any location; ease of medication documentation; and capacity to access diagnostic test results. Usability concerns included lack of intuitiveness; complexity; difficulties communicating with primary and other care sectors; and time taken to perform clinical tasks.

conclusionIf the benefits of EMRs are to be realised, there are good reasons to address the usability challenges identified by clinicians. Easy solutions that could improve the usability experience of hospital-based clinicians include resolving sign-on issues, use of templates, and more intelligent alerts and warnings to avoid errors. IMPLICATIONS: These essential improvements to the usability of the EMR, which are the foundation of the digital health system, will enable hospital clinicians to deliver safer and more effective health care.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsQualitative ResearchAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMedical Staff, HospitalNursing Staff, HospitalSurveys and Questionnairescliniciancomputerised medical record systemselectronic medical recordhealth information managementqualitativetext analyticsusability

Identifiers

PMID36866778
PMCPMC11401339

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.