53
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Norwegian National Summary Care Record: a qualitative analysis of doctors’ use of and trust in shared patient information

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          This paper explores Norwegian doctors’ use of and experiences with a national tool for sharing core patient health information. The summary care record (SCR; the Kjernejournal in Norwegian) is the first national system for sharing patient information among the various levels and institutions of health care throughout the country. The health authorities have invested heavily in the development, implementation and deployment of this tool, and as of 2017 all Norwegian citizens have a personalised SCR. However, as there remains limited knowledge about health professionals’ use of, experiences with and opinions regarding this new tool, the purpose of this study was to explore doctors’ direct SCR experiences.

          Methods

          We conducted 25 in-depth interviews with 10 doctors from an emergency ward, 5 doctors from an emergency clinic and 10 doctors from 5 general practitioner offices. We then transcribed, thematically coded and analysed the interviews utilising a grounded theory approach.

          Results

          The SCRs contain several features for providing core patient information that is particularly relevant in acute or emergency situations; nonetheless, we found that the doctors generally used only one of the tool’s six functions, namely, the pharmaceutical summary. In addition, they primarily used this summary for a few subgroups of patients, including in the emergency ward for unconscious patients, for elderly patients with multiple prescriptions and for patients with substance abuse conditions. The primary difference of the pharmaceutical summary compared with the other functions of the tool is that patient information is automatically updated from a national pharmaceutical server, while other clinically relevant functions, like the critical information category, require manual updates by the health professionals themselves, thereby potentially causing variations in the accuracy, completeness and trustworthiness of the data.

          Conclusion

          Therefore, we can assume that the popularity of the pharmaceutical summary among doctors is based on their preference to place their trust in – and therefore more often utilise – automatically updated information. In addition, the doctors’ lack of trust in manually updated information might have severe implications for the future success of the SCR and for similar digital tools for sharing patient information.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3069-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Patients' trust in physicians: many theories, few measures, and little data.

          Trust is one of the central features of patient-physician relationships. Rapid changes in the health care system are feared by many to be threatening patients' trust in their physicians. Yet, despite its acknowledged importance and potential fragility, rigorous efforts to conceptualize and measure patient trust have been relatively few. This article presents a synopsis of theories about patient trust and the evolution of methods to measure it. Clinicians, educators, and researchers interested in this area may find this information useful in practice and teaching. The gaps identified in our knowledge about trust can help target new efforts to strengthen the methodological basis of work to understand this vital element of medical relationships.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method.

            The extensive research literature on electronic patient records (EPRs) presents challenges to systematic reviewers because it covers multiple research traditions with different underlying philosophical assumptions and methodological approaches. Using the meta-narrative method and searching beyond the Medline-indexed literature, this review used "conflicting" findings to address higher-order questions about how researchers had differently conceptualized and studied the EPR and its implementation. Twenty-four previous systematic reviews and ninety-four further primary studies were considered. Key tensions in the literature centered on (1) the EPR ("container" or "itinerary"); (2) the EPR user ("information-processer" or "member of socio-technical network"); (3) organizational context ("the setting within which the EPR is implemented" or "the EPR-in-use"); (4) clinical work ("decision making" or "situated practice"); (5) the process of change ("the logic of determinism" or "the logic of opposition"); (6) implementation success ("objectively defined" or "socially negotiated"); and (7) complexity and scale ("the bigger the better" or "small is beautiful"). The findings suggest that EPR use will always require human input to recontextualize knowledge; that even though secondary work (audit, research, billing) may be made more efficient by the EPR, primary clinical work may be made less efficient; that paper may offer a unique degree of ecological flexibility; and that smaller EPR systems may sometimes be more efficient and effective than larger ones. We suggest an agenda for further research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The reflexive interview and a performative social science

              N. Denzin (2001)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                kari.dyb@ehealthresearch.no
                line.lundvoll.warth@ehealthresearch.no
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                6 April 2018
                6 April 2018
                2018
                : 18
                : 252
                Affiliations
                Norwegian Centre for E-health Research, Siva Innovation Centre Breivika, Sykehusveien. 23, 9019 Tromsø, Norway
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4555-3891
                Article
                3069
                10.1186/s12913-018-3069-y
                5889579
                29625587
                af86106b-b311-4cd8-9cf8-a2dfa760aea1
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 15 January 2018
                : 28 March 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Norwegian Centre for E-health Research
                Award ID: 43449
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Health & Social care
                summary care record,doctors use and experiences,implementation,information sharing,trust,qualitative analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article