Introduction of shared electronic records: multi-site case study using diffusion of innovation theory

Abstract

Objective To explore the introduction of a centrally stored, shared electronic patient record (the summary care record (SCR)) in England and draw wider lessons about the implementation of large scale information technology projects in health care. Design Multi-site, mixed method case study applying utilisation focused evaluation. Setting Four early adopter sites for the SCR in Englandthree in urban areas of relative socioeconomic deprivation and the fourth in a relatively affluent rural area. Data sources and analysis Data included 250 staff interviews, 1500 hours of ethnographic observation, interviews and focus groups with 170 patients and carers, 2500 pages of correspondence and documentary evidence, and incorporation of relevant surveys and statistics produced by others. These were analysed by using a thematic approach drawing on (and extending) a theoretical model of complex change developed in a previous systematic review. Main findings The mixed fortunes of the SCR programme in its first year were largely explained by eight interacting influences. The first was the SCR's material properties (especially technical immaturity and lack of interoperability) and attributes (especially the extent to which potential adopters believed the benefits outweighed the risks). The second was adopters' concerns (especially about workload and the ethicality of sharing "confidential" information on an implied consent model). The third influence was interpersonal influence (for example, opinion leaders, champions, facilitators), and the fourth was organisational antecedents for innovation (for example past experience with information technology projects, leadership and management capacity, effective data capture systems, slack resources). The fifth was organisational readiness for the SCR (for example, innovation-system fit, tension for change, power balances between supporters and opponents, baseline data quality). The sixth was the implementation process (including the nature of the change model and the extent to which new routines associated with the SCR aligned with existing organisational routines). The seventh influence was the nature and quality of links between different parts of the system, and the final one was the wider environment (especially the political context of the programme).Conclusion Shared electronic records are not plug-in technologies. They are complex innovations that must be accepted by individual patients and staff and also embedded in organisational and inter-organisational routines. This process is heavily influenced at the microlevel by the material properties of the technology, individuals' attitudes and concerns, and interpersonal influence; at the meso-level by organisational antecedents, readiness, and operational aspects of implementation; and at the macro-level by institutional and socio-political forces. A case study approach and multi-level theoretical analysis can illuminate how contextual factors shape, enable, and constrain new, technology supported models of patient care. INT...

Innovation Of, In, On Infrastructures: Articulating the Role of Architecture in Information Infrastructure Evolution

“…However, research has shown how the top-down specification-driven approach has limitations when it comes to successfully innovating information infrastructures (Ciborra et al, 2000;Greenhalgh et al, 2008;Hanseth & Ciborra, 2007;Lyytinen & Fomin, 2002). The approach does not take into account the openness of IIs, their sociotechnical complexity, or their evolutionary growing dynamics.…”

Hybridity as a process of technology's ‘translation’: Customizing a national Electronic Patient Record

“…There is a substantial body of literature from Information Systems and Science and Technology Studies (STS) that discusses the outcomes, and to some extent the process, of EPR implementations at a local or national level (Brunsson et al, 2012;Davidson & Chiasson, 2005;Greenhalgh et al, 2008;Håland, 2012;Hanseth et al, 2006;Hanseth & Lundberg, 2001;Kallinikos, 2010;Jones, 2003;Lapointe & Rivard, 2005;Oborn et al, 2011;Pollock et al, 2003;Vikkelsø, 2005;Williams & Pollock, 2008). In most studies customization of EPR is presented as being confined to a single organization, the user, with other stakeholders, such as developers and suppliers, being external to it (Boulus & Bjorn, 2010;Oborn et al, 2011).…”

Process of diffusing cancer survivorship care into oncology practice

“…A key determinant of successful innovation is whether the new routine associated with the innovation aligns rather than conflicts with organizational and interorganizational routines. If people are uncomfortable with the status quo and desire change, a potential innovation is more likely to be successfully adopted [16]. Alignment with routines and an understanding of the "culture of oncology," as well as flexibility to try an approach and then change to another approach as needed, were important attributes in the diffusion process for the COEs.…”