Disrupted and Restored Patient Experience With Transition to New Electronic Health Record System

Tian, Dajun; Hoehner, Christine M.; Woeltje, Keith F.; Luong, Lan; Lane, Michael A.

doi:10.1177/23743735211034064

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 ). The included studies were conducted in two healthcare systems in the midwestern US [ 15 , 16 ] and a single community hospital in Pennsylvania, US [ 17 ]. All three studies used quantitative surveys and the primary outcome for each was patient satisfaction.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding patients' experiences during transitions from one electronic health record to another: A scoping review

Cogan,

Haltom,

Shimada

et al. 2024

PEC Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding patients' experiences during transitions from one electronic health record to another: A scoping review

Cogan,

Haltom,

Shimada

et al. 2024

PEC Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Of the 9 quantitative or mixed methods studies reporting the patient perspective, 7 (78%) [ 48 , 51 , 57 , 69 , 84 , 96 , 102 ] used different survey methods (eg, the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems [HCAHPS] survey) to quantify “patient experience” using various satisfaction metrics. Of these studies, 57% (4/7) reported a positive association [ 48 , 57 , 69 , 84 ] between EMR and patient satisfaction scores and 43% (3/7) reported no substantial change [ 51 , 96 , 102 ]. In total, 22% (2/9) of the studies [ 67 , 92 ] used hospital outcomes rather than patient feedback, which did not meet our definition of “experience.”…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 33% (3/9) of the studies [ 57 , 96 , 102 ] reported patient experience before and after EMR implementation (or transition between EMR systems). Tian et al [ 96 ] surveyed 34,425 patients using the standardized HCAHPS survey and found a significant decreasing trend in patient experience scores for the 6 months after implementation followed by a return to baseline, with no significant changes overall. Monturo et al [ 102 ] surveyed 55 patients and found no significant changes in overall patient satisfaction.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Digital Hospitals on Patient and Clinician Experience: Systematic Review and Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

Canfell,

Woods,

Meshkat

et al. 2024

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The digital transformation of health care is advancing rapidly. A well-accepted framework for health care improvement is the Quadruple Aim: improved clinician experience, improved patient experience, improved population health, and reduced health care costs. Hospitals are attempting to improve care by using digital technologies, but the effectiveness of these technologies is often only measured against cost and quality indicators, and less is known about the clinician and patient experience. Objective This study aims to conduct a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis to assess the clinician and patient experience of digital hospitals. Methods The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and ENTREQ (Enhancing the Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research) guidelines were followed. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched from January 2010 to June 2022. Studies that explored multidisciplinary clinician or adult inpatient experiences of digital hospitals (with a full electronic medical record) were included. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data synthesis was performed narratively for quantitative studies. Qualitative evidence synthesis was performed via (1) automated machine learning text analytics using Leximancer (Leximancer Pty Ltd) and (2) researcher-led inductive synthesis to generate themes. Results A total of 61 studies (n=39, 64% quantitative; n=15, 25% qualitative; and n=7, 11% mixed methods) were included. Most studies (55/61, 90%) investigated clinician experiences, whereas few (10/61, 16%) investigated patient experiences. The study populations ranged from 8 to 3610 clinicians, 11 to 34,425 patients, and 5 to 2836 hospitals. Quantitative outcomes indicated that clinicians had a positive overall satisfaction (17/24, 71% of the studies) with digital hospitals, and most studies (11/19, 58%) reported a positive sentiment toward usability. Data accessibility was reported positively, whereas adaptation, clinician-patient interaction, and workload burnout were reported negatively. The effects of digital hospitals on patient safety and clinicians’ ability to deliver patient care were mixed. The qualitative evidence synthesis of clinician experience studies (18/61, 30%) generated 7 themes: inefficient digital documentation, inconsistent data quality, disruptions to conventional health care relationships, acceptance, safety versus risk, reliance on hybrid (digital and paper) workflows, and patient data privacy. There was weak evidence of a positive association between digital hospitals and patient satisfaction scores. Conclusions Clinicians’ experience of digital hospitals appears positive according to high-level indicators (eg, overall satisfaction and data accessibility), but the qualitative evidence synthesis revealed substantive tensions. There is insufficient evidence to draw a definitive conclusion on the patient experience within digital hospitals, but indications appear positive or agnostic. Future research must prioritize equitable investigation and definition of the digital clinician and patient experience to achieve the Quadruple Aim of health care.

show abstract

“…Their model incorporates people, processes, and technology, and it aims to address the needs of patients [21]. In a study concerning the transition from the old electronic health record system to the new, the measured factors were communication with nurses and doctors, the responsiveness of hospital staff, communication about medication, discharge information, the care transition, and the hospital environment [46]. According to Mayer [31], patients desire convenient, easily accessible care, which can be presented from three perspectives: location, access, and efficiency.…”

Section: Types Of Ehealth Solutions For Patient Usementioning

confidence: 99%

“…(incl. qualitative and/or quantitative questions) [19,20,[22][23][24][25]28,29,34,40,43,46,[52][53][54][56][57][58]60] Interview [30,32,35,37,42,45,59] Focus group [36,41] Service analysis [31,51] Design methods [44] Reviews [26,39,49] Implementation study [18,21,50,61] Cross-sectional study [27,33] eHealth pilot or trial [38,43,47,48,55] The most frequently used method (i.e., surveys) was applied in 18 papers (see Figure 2). As patient satisfaction was one of the most mentioned aspects affecting PX, patient satisfaction surveys were the most broadly applied.…”

Section: Case Studies Qualitative Research Surveysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Experience from an eHealth Perspective: A Scoping Review of Approaches and Recent Trends

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Patients’ experiences are increasingly gaining interest in multiple research fields. Researchers have applied various approaches to studying patient experience (PX); however, there is no commonly agreed-upon definition of PX. This scoping review focuses on PX from an eHealth perspective. Our aim was to: 1) describe how PX has been defined, 2) investigate which factors influencing PX and components of PX have been identified and researched, 3) explore the methods used in studying PX, and 4) find out the recent trends in PX research from an eHealth perspective. Methods: We selected six major journals covering the fields of health informatics, PX, and nursing informatics. Using the search terms “patient experience” and technology-related terms (e.g., digital, eHealth), we searched for articles published between 2019 and 2021. From 426 articles, 44 were included in the analysis. Results: Multiple concepts and meanings are used to refer to PX. Few articles include vague descriptions of the concept. Numerous eHealth factors are influencing PX, as well as components considering PX. The influencing factors were related to eHealth solutions’ type and quality, and care process, when the components of PX were related to communication, remote interaction, risks and concerns, and patients’ attitudes towards telehealth. Surveys were the main method used to study PX, followed by interviews. Conclusions: PX is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, and it is described as a synonym for patient satisfaction and telehealth experiences. Further multidisciplinary research is needed to understand PX as a phenomenon and to outline a framework for the research.

show abstract

Disrupted and Restored Patient Experience With Transition to New Electronic Health Record System

Cited by 9 publications

References 25 publications

Understanding patients' experiences during transitions from one electronic health record to another: A scoping review

Understanding patients' experiences during transitions from one electronic health record to another: A scoping review

The Impact of Digital Hospitals on Patient and Clinician Experience: Systematic Review and Qualitative Evidence Synthesis

Patient Experience from an eHealth Perspective: A Scoping Review of Approaches and Recent Trends

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About