6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinician and staff experiences with frustrated patients during an electronic health record transition: a qualitative case study

      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

          Electronic health record (EHR) transitions are known to be highly disruptive, can drastically impact clinician and staff experiences, and may influence patients’ experiences using the electronic patient portal. Clinicians and staff can gain insights into patient experiences and be influenced by what they see and hear from patients. Through the lens of an emergency preparedness framework, we examined clinician and staff reactions to and perceptions of their patients’ experiences with the portal during an EHR transition at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

          Methods

          This qualitative case study was situated within a larger multi-methods evaluation of the EHR transition. We conducted a total of 122 interviews with 30 clinicians and staff across disciplines at the initial VA EHR transition site before, immediately after, and up to 12 months after go-live (September 2020-November 2021). Interview transcripts were coded using a priori and emergent codes. The coded text segments relevant to patient experience and clinician interactions with patients were extracted and analyzed to identify themes. For each theme, recommendations were defined based on each stage of an emergency preparedness framework (mitigate, prepare, respond, recover).

          Results

          In post-go-live interviews participants expressed concerns about the reliability of communicating with their patients via secure messaging within the new EHR portal. Participants felt ill-equipped to field patients’ questions and frustrations navigating the new portal. Participants learned that patients experienced difficulties learning to use and accessing the portal; when unsuccessful, some had difficulties obtaining medication refills via the portal and used the call center as an alternative. However, long telephone wait times provoked patients to walk into the clinic for care, often frustrated and without an appointment. Patients needing increased in-person attention heightened participants’ daily workload and their concern for patients’ well-being. Recommendations for each theme fit within a stage of the emergency preparedness framework.

          Conclusions

          Application of an emergency preparedness framework to EHR transitions could help address the concerns raised by the participants, (1) mitigating disruptions by identifying at-risk patients before the transition, (2) preparing end-users by disseminating patient-centered informational resources, (3) responding by building capacity for disrupted services, and (4) recovering by monitoring integrity of the new portal function.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

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

          The qualitative content analysis process.

          This paper is a description of inductive and deductive content analysis. Content analysis is a method that may be used with either qualitative or quantitative data and in an inductive or deductive way. Qualitative content analysis is commonly used in nursing studies but little has been published on the analysis process and many research books generally only provide a short description of this method. When using content analysis, the aim was to build a model to describe the phenomenon in a conceptual form. Both inductive and deductive analysis processes are represented as three main phases: preparation, organizing and reporting. The preparation phase is similar in both approaches. The concepts are derived from the data in inductive content analysis. Deductive content analysis is used when the structure of analysis is operationalized on the basis of previous knowledge. Inductive content analysis is used in cases where there are no previous studies dealing with the phenomenon or when it is fragmented. A deductive approach is useful if the general aim was to test a previous theory in a different situation or to compare categories at different time periods.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Matrix analysis as a complementary analytic strategy in qualitative inquiry.

            In the current health care environment, researchers are asked to share meaningful results with interdisciplinary professional audiences, concerned community members, students, policy makers, planners, and financial officers. Emphasis is placed on effective health care outcomes and evidence, especially for underserved and vulnerable populations. Any research strategy that facilitates the clear, accurate communication of findings and voices will likely benefit groups targeted for intervention with scarce resources. In this example, matrix analysis contributes to the display, interpretation, pragmatic evaluation, and dissemination of findings in a study of rural elders. The author proposes matrix analysis as a strategy to advance knowledge and enhance the development of evidence in qualitative research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of the transformation of the Veterans Affairs Health Care System on the quality of care.

              In the mid-1990s, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system initiated a systemwide reengineering to, among other things, improve its quality of care. We sought to determine the subsequent change in the quality of health care and to compare the quality with that of the Medicare fee-for-service program. Using data from an ongoing performance-evaluation program in the VA, we evaluated the quality of preventive, acute, and chronic care. We assessed the change in quality-of-care indicators from 1994 (before reengineering) through 2000 and compared the quality of care with that afforded by the Medicare fee-for-service system, using the same indicators of quality. In fiscal year 2000, throughout the VA system, the percentage of patients receiving appropriate care was 90 percent or greater for 9 of 17 quality-of-care indicators and exceeded 70 percent for 13 of 17 indicators. There were statistically significant improvements in quality from 1994-1995 through 2000 for all nine indicators that were collected in all years. As compared with the Medicare fee-for-service program, the VA performed significantly better on all 11 similar quality indicators for the period from 1997 through 1999. In 2000, the VA outperformed Medicare on 12 of 13 indicators. The quality of care in the VA health care system substantially improved after the implementation of a systemwide reengineering and, during the period from 1997 through 2000, was significantly better than that in the Medicare fee-for-service program. These data suggest that the quality-improvement initiatives adopted by the VA in the mid-1990s were effective. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Sherry.ball@va.gov
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                26 April 2024
                26 April 2024
                2024
                : 24
                : 535
                Affiliations
                [1 ]VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, ( https://ror.org/041sxnd36) 10701 East Blvd., Research Service 151, 44106 Cleveland, OH USA
                [2 ]Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, ( https://ror.org/04v00sg98) Boston, MA USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.38142.3c, ISNI 000000041936754X, Department of Psychiatry, , Harvard Medical School, ; Boston, MA USA
                [4 ]Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA USA
                [5 ]Division of Health Informatics & Implementation Science, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, ( https://ror.org/0464eyp60) Worcester, MA USA
                [6 ]Seattle-Denver Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, VHA Puget Sound Health Care System, ( https://ror.org/00ky3az31) Seattle, WA USA
                [7 ]GRID grid.34477.33, ISNI 0000000122986657, University of Washington School of Public Health, ; Seattle, WA USA
                [8 ]GRID grid.254880.3, ISNI 0000 0001 2179 2404, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, ; Hannover, NH USA
                Article
                10974
                10.1186/s12913-024-10974-5
                11046755
                38671473
                b74e0959-e807-4d70-ac0f-cef348c81071
                © This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 29 August 2023
                : 9 April 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000738, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs;
                Award ID: HSRD Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) PEC 20-168
                Award ID: HSRD Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) PEC 20-168
                Award ID: HSRD Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) PEC 20-168
                Award ID: HSRD Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) PEC 20-168
                Award ID: HSRD Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) PEC 20-168
                Award ID: HSRD Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) PEC 20-168
                Award ID: HSRD Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) PEC 20-168
                Award ID: HSRD Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) PEC 20-168
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Health & Social care
                ehr transition,patient experience,clinician experience,qualitative analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article