Electronic Health Record Usability Research Articles

How do opt-in versus opt-out settings nudge patients toward electronic health record adoption? An exploratory study of facilitators and barriers in Austria and France.

Electronic health records (EHR)are becoming an integral part of the health system in many developed countries, though implementations and settings vary across countries. Some countries have adopted an opt-out policy, in which patients are enrolled in the EHR system following a default nudge, while others have applied an opt-in policy, where patients have to take action to opt into the system. While opt-in systems may exhibit lower levels of active user requests for access, this contrasts with opt-out systems where a notable percentage of users may passively retain access. Thus, our research endeavor aims to explore facilitators and barriers that contribute to explaining EHR usage (i.e., actively accessing the EHR system) in two countries with either an opt-in or opt-out setting, exemplified by France and Austria. A qualitative exploratory approach using a semi-structured interview guideline was undertaken in both countries: 1) In Austria, with four homogenously composed group discussions, and 2) in France, with 19 single patient interviews. The data were collected from October 2020 to January 2021. Influencing factors were categorized into twelve subcategories. Patients have similar experiences in both countries with regard to all facilitating categories, for instance, the role of health providers, awareness of EHR and social norms. However, we highlighted important differences between the two systems regarding hurdles impeding EHR usage, namely, a lack of communication as well as transparency or information security about EHR. Implementing additional safeguards to enhance privacy protection and supporting patients to improve their digital ability may help to diminish the perception of EHR-induced barriers and improve patients' health and commitment in the long term. Understanding the differences and similarities will help to develop practical implications to tackle the problem of low EHR usage rates in the long run. This problem is prevalent in countries with both types of EHR default settings.

Comparing "Meaningful Use" of Health Information Technology in Pennsylvania: Electronic Prescription Rates of Metropolitan and Rural Counties.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act incentivized the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). Health systems looked to leverage technology to assist in serving populations in health professional shortage areas. Qualitative research points to EHR usability as a source of health inequities in rural settings, making the challenges of EHR usage a subject of interest. Pennsylvania offers a model for investigating rural health infrastructure with it having the third largest rural population in the United States. This study analyzed the adoption of Electronic Prescribing in the 67 Pennsylvania (PA) counties. Physician adoption and usage data for PA and the United States were compared using a t-test to establish a basis for comparison. PA counties were categorized using the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)'s Rural-Urban Commuting Areas (RUCAs) system. Surescript use percentages were plotted against the RUCA scores of each PA county to create a polynomial regression model. PA office-based physicians, on average, utilize e-prescription tools at the same rate as the national average with 59% of practices utilizing Surescripts as of 2013. There was no significant correlation between Surescript usage and the rural/urban classification of counties in Pennsylvania (R-squared value of 0.06). Pennsylvania was able to adopt health information technology (HIT) infrastructure at the same rate as the national average. Rural and metropolitan definitions do not correlate to meaningful use of HIT, thus usability of HIT cannot be tied to health outcomes. Future studies looking at specific forms of HIT and their ability to decrease the burden of administrative work for clinicians.

Replacing the Scalpel With a Computer Mouse: An Evaluation of Time Spent on Electronic Health Record for Plastic Surgery Residents and Its Impact on Resident Training.

Following the integration of the electronic health record (EHR) into the healthcare system, concern has grown regarding EHR use on physician well-being. For surgical residents, time spent on the EHR increases the burden of a demanding, hourly restricted schedule and detracts from time spent honing surgical skills. To better characterize these burdens, we sought to describe EHR utilization patterns for plastic surgery residents. Integrated plastic surgery resident EHR utilization from March 2019 to March 2020 was extracted via Cerner Analytics at a tertiary academic medical center. Time spent in the EHR on-duty (0600-1759) and off-duty (1800-0559) in the form of chart review, orders, documentation, and patient discovery was analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed in the form of independent t tests and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Twelve plastic surgery residents spent a daily average of 94 ± 84 minutes on the EHR, one-third of which was spent off-duty. Juniors (postgraduate years 1-3) spent 123 ± 99 minutes versus seniors (postgraduate years 4-6) who spent 61 ± 49 minutes (P < 0.01). Seniors spent 19% of time on the EHR off-duty, compared with 37% for juniors (P < 0.01). Chart review comprised the majority (42%) of EHR usage, followed by patient discovery (22%), orders (14%), documentation (12%), other (6%), and messaging (1%). Seniors spent more time on patient discovery (25% vs 21%, P < 0.001), while juniors spent more time performing chart review (48% vs 36%, P = 0.19). Integrated plastic surgery residents average 1.5 hours on the EHR daily. Junior residents spend 1 hour more per day on the EHR, including more time off-duty and more time performing chart review. These added hours may play a role in duty hour violations and detract from obtaining operative skill sets.

Explaining Variability in Electronic Health Record Effort in Primary Care Ambulatory Encounters.

Electronic health record (EHR) user interface event logs are fast providing another perspective on the value and efficiency EHR technology brings to health care. Analysis of these detailed usage data has demonstrated their potential to identify EHR and clinical process design factors related to user efficiency, satisfaction, and burnout. This study aimed to analyze the event log data across 26 different health systems to determine the variability of use of a single vendor's EHR based on four event log metrics, at the individual, practice group, and health system levels. We obtained de-identified event log data recorded from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2019, from 26 health systems' primary care physicians. We estimated the variability in total Active EHR Time, Documentation Time, Chart Review Time, and Ordering Time across health systems, practice groups, and individual physicians. In total, 5,444 physicians (Family Medicine: 3,042 and Internal Medicine: 2,422) provided care in a total of 2,285 different practices nested in 26 health systems. Health systems explain 1.29, 3.55, 3.45, and 3.30% of the total variability in Active Time, Documentation Time, Chart Review Time, and Ordering Time, respectively. Practice-level variability was estimated to be 7.96, 13.52, 8.39, and 5.57%, respectively, and individual physicians explained the largest proportion of the variability for those same outcomes 17.09, 27.49, 17.51, and 19.75%, respectively. The most variable physician EHR usage patterns occurs at the individual physician level and decreases as you move up to the practice and health system levels. This suggests that interventions to improve individual users' EHR usage efficiency may have the most potential impact compared with those directed at health system or practice levels.

Optimization of Electronic Health Record Usability

Optimization of Electronic Health Record Usability

Electronic Health Record Usability When Caring for Children With Medical Complexity.

To evaluate usability of and clinician satisfaction with the electronic health record (EHR) in the context of caring for children with medical complexity (CMC) at a large academic pediatric hospital and to identify key areas for targeted improvements. Cross-sectional study of pediatric faculty and advanced practice providers across several pediatric specialties using an online Research Electronic Data Capture survey. EHR usability was measured with 6 validated questions from the National Usability-Focused Health Information System Scale, and satisfaction with common EHR functionalities was measured with 6 original Likert-scale questions and 3 free-text questions. Results were analyzed with bivariate testing. More than half of providers completed the survey (n = 81, response rate 56%). When asked 6 positively-phrased, validated usability questions, a majority of respondents either agreed or were neutral. Respondents were most dissatisfied with information quality of the summary view and most satisfied with physician communication. Older respondents were less satisfied with EHR usability (P < .01). Focusing on functionalities needed for CMC, the majority of respondents were dissatisfied with the chart review process. More respondents were dissatisfied with order entry (P = .002) and documentation (P = .017) when caring for CMC compared with caring for other patients. The most cited challenges were locating recent patient data, performing an accurate medication reconciliation, and lack of specialized documentation templates. Clinicians are less satisfied with common EHR functionalities when caring for CMC compared with caring for all other patients. Targeted interventions to improve usability and common EHR functionalities for CMC are necessary to improve the user experience.

Optimization of Electronic Health Record Usability Through a Department-Led Quality Improvement Process.

Electronic health records (EHR) have become commonplace in medicine. A disconnect between developers and users while creating the interface often fails to create a product that captures clinical workflow, and issues become apparent with implementation. Optimization allows collaboration of clinicians and informaticists after implementation, but documentation of success has only been at the institutional level. A 4-month, department-wide EHR optimization was conducted with information technology (IT). Optimizations were developed from an intensive quality improvement process involving all levels of clinicians and clinical staff. The optimizations were then categorized as accommodations (department adjusted workflow to EHR), creations (IT developed new workflows within EHR), discoveries (department found workflows within EHR), and modifications (IT changed workflows within EHR). Departmental productivity, defined as number of visits, charges, and payments, was standardized to ratios prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and evaluated by Taylor's change point analysis. Significant improvements were defined as shifts (change points), trends (5 or more consecutive values above/below the mean), and values outside 95% CIs. The 124 optimizations were categorized as 43 accommodations, 13 creations, 54 discoveries, and 14 modifications. Productivity ratios of monthly charges (0.74 to 1.28) and payments (0.83 to 1.58) significantly improved with the optimization efforts. Monthly visit ratios increased (0.65 to 0.98) but did not change significantly. Departmental collaboration with organizational IT for EHR optimization focused on detailed analysis of how workflows can impact productivity. Discovery optimization predominance indicates many solutions to EHR usability problems were already in the system. A large proportion of accommodation optimizations reinforced the need for better developer-user collaboration before implementation.Annals Early Access.

The relationship between perceptions of electronic health record usability and clinical importance of social and environmental determinants of health on provider documentation.

Social and environmental determinants of health (SEDH) data in the electronic health record (EHR) can be inaccurate and incomplete. Providers are in a unique position to impact this issue as they both obtain and enter this data, however, the variability in screening and documentation practices currently limits the ability to mobilize SEDH data for secondary uses. This study explores whether providers' perceptions of clinical importance of SEDH or EHR usability influenced data entry by analyzing two relationships: (1) provider charting behavior and clinical consideration of SEDH and (2) provider charting behavior and ease of EHR use in charting. We performed a cross-sectional study using an 11-question electronic survey to assess self-reported practices related to clinical consideration of SEDH elements, EHR usability and SEDH documentation of all staff physicians, identified using administrative listserves, at Penn State Health Hershey Medical Center during September to October 2021. A total of 201 physicians responded to and completed the survey out of a possible 2,478 identified staff physicians (8.1% response rate). A five-point Likert scale from "never" to "always" assessed charting behavior and clinical consideration. Responses were dichotomized as consistent/inconsistent and vital/not vital respectively. EHR usability was assessed as "yes" or "no" responses. Fisher's exact tests assessed the relationship between charting behavior and clinical consideration and to compare charting practices between different SEDHs. Cumulative measures were constructed for consistent charting and ease of charting. A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) compared SDH and EDH with respect to each cumulative measure and was quantified using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our results show that provider documentation frequency of an SEDH is associated with perceived clinical utility as well as ease of charting and that providers were more likely to consistently chart on SDH versus EDH. Nuances in these relationships did exist with one notable example comparing the results of smoking (SDH) to infectious disease outbreaks (EDH). Despite similar percentages of physicians reporting that both smoking and infectious disease outbreaks are vital to care, differences in charting consistency and ease of charting between these two were seen. Taken as a whole, our results suggest that SEDH quality optimization efforts cannot consider physician perceptions and EHR usability as siloed entities and that EHR design should not be the only target for intervention. The associations found in this study provide a starting point to understand the complexity in how clinical utility and EHR usability influence charting consistency of each SEDH element, however, further research is needed to understand how these relationships intersect at various levels in the SEDH data optimization process.

Electronic Health Record Usage Patterns Across Surgical Subspecialties.

This study aimed to utilize metrics from physician action logs to analyze surgeon clinical, volume, electronic health record (EHR) efficiency, EHR proficiency, and workload outside scheduled time as impacted by physician characteristics such as years of experience, gender, subspecialty, academic title, and administrative title. We selected 30 metrics from Epic Signal, an analytic tool in Epic that extracts metrics related to clinician documentation. Metrics measuring appointments, messages, and scheduled hours per day were used as a correlate for volume. EHR efficiency, and proficiency were measured by scores built into Epic Signal. Metrics measuring time spent in the EHR outside working hours were used as a correlate for documentation burden. We analyzed these metrics among surgeons at our institution across 4 months and correlated them with physician characteristics. Analysis of 133 surgeons showed that, when stratified by gender, female surgeons had significantly higher EHR metrics for time per day, time per appointment, and documentation burden, and significantly lower EHR metrics for efficiency when compared to male surgeons. When stratified by experience, surgeons with 0 to 5 years of experience had significantly lower EHR metrics for volume, time per day, efficiency, and proficiency when compared to surgeons with 6 to 10 and more than 10 years of experience. On multivariate analysis, having over 10 years of experience was an independent predictor of more appointments per day, greater proficiency, and spending less time per completed message. Female gender was an independent predictor of spending more time in notes per appointment and time spent in the EHR outside working hours. The burden associated with volume, proficiency, efficiency, and workload outside scheduled time related to EHR use varies by gender and years of experience in our cohort of surgeons. Evaluation of physician action logs could help identify those at higher risk of burnout due to burdensome medical documentation.

Understanding suboptimal e-consult requests: lessons from the VA.

Electronic consultations, or e-consults, which are requests for specialist advice without direct patient interaction, are becoming increasingly common across health systems. We sought to identify clinicians' perspectives on the quality of e-consult requests that they send and receive. A qualitative research study at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New England Healthcare System. We interviewed a total of 73 clinicians, including 38 specialists across 3 specialties (cardiology, neurology, pulmonology) and 35 primary care clinicians (PCCs), between March and June 2019. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. VA specialists and PCCs generally agreed that e-consult requests should be focused and precise, not require lengthy chart review, and include adequate preliminary workup results. At the same time, specialists expressed frustration with what they perceived as suboptimal e-consult requests. Interviewees attributed this gap to 3 factors: limitations of the electronic health record user interface, divergence between PCCs and specialists in the areas of expertise, and organizational pressures on the 2 groups. VA clinicians' perspectives on suboptimal requests contain lessons that are broadly applicable to other health systems that seek to maximize the potential of e-consults to facilitate clinician collaboration and care coordination.

Assessing Electronic Health Record (EHR) Use during a Major EHR Transition: An Innovative Mixed Methods Approach

BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR) transitions are inherently disruptive to healthcare workers who must rapidly learn a new EHR and adapt to altered clinical workflows. Healthcare workers’ perceptions of EHR usability and their EHR use patterns following transitions are poorly understood. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is currently replacing its homegrown EHR with a commercial Cerner EHR, presenting a unique opportunity to examine EHR use trends and usability perceptions.ObjectiveTo assess EHR usability and uptake up to 1-year post-transition at the first VA EHR transition site using a novel longitudinal, mixed methods approach.DesignA concurrent mixed methods strategy using EHR use metrics and qualitative interview data.Participants141 clinicians with data from select EHR use metrics in Cerner Lights On Network®. Interviews with 25 healthcare workers in various clinical and administrative roles.ApproachWe assessed changes in total EHR time, documentation time, and order time per patient post-transition. Interview transcripts (n = 90) were coded and analyzed for content specific to EHR usability.Key ResultsTotal EHR time, documentation time, and order time all decreased precipitously within the first four months after go-live and demonstrated gradual improvements over 12 months. Interview participants expressed ongoing concerns with the EHR’s usability and functionality up to a year after go-live such as tasks taking longer than the old system and inefficiencies related to inadequate training and inherent features of the new system. These sentiments did not seem to reflect the observed improvements in EHR use metrics.ConclusionsThe integration of quantitative and qualitative data yielded a complex picture of EHR usability. Participants described persistent challenges with EHR usability 1 year after go-live contrasting with observed improvements in EHR use metrics. Combining findings across methods can provide a clearer, contextualized understanding of EHR adoption and use patterns during EHR transitions.

Electronic Health Record Usage in an Academic Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Practice

Background While the relationship between electronic health record usage and physician burnout has been investigated in other specialties, no reports exist for orthopaedic surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine the amount of time spent on the electronic health record compared to actual patient interaction in four busy orthopaedic outpatient clinics. Hypothesis We hypothesized that surgeons would spend as much time on the electronic health record as they do interacting with patients on a typical clinic day. Methods Four busy academic orthopaedic surgeons (Surgeon 1, 2, 3, and 4) at a tertiary academic institution were each followed on clinic days to determine their total time spent on Epic Hyperspace electronic health record as compared to face-to-face interactions with patients. A research assistant recorded the amount of time each surgeon spent dictating notes, writing orders, or replying to clinical inbox messages (electronic health record time) and how much time was spent on loading screens or electronic health record buffering (loading time) during which no actions could be completed. Results Surgeon 1 spent an average of 63% of their clinic days using the electronic health record. Surgeon 2 spent 50% of their time on the computer. Surgeon 3 spent 35% of his days on the computer. Surgeon 4 spent 46% of his days on the computer. Conclusion Approximately half of each surgeon’s clinic time was spent using the electronic health record. Given the known influence of electronic health record usage on orthopaedic surgeon burnout, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The solution likely involves a multifactorial approach, including changes to electronic health records, widespread use of scribes or advanced care teams, work hour limitations, and mindfulness training for residents and faculty. Information technology quality improvements can be made to EHRs that include reducing or eliminating unnecessary information displayed on screen, providing more abundant and accessible EHR training and on-site technical support, and a more streamlined software interface that eliminates unnecessary typing and clicks to improve charting flow and efficiency. Level of Evidence Level IV Descriptive Study

Improving the Quality and Utility of Electronic Health Record Data through Ontologies.

The translational research community, in general, and the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) community, in particular, share the vision of repurposing EHRs for research that will improve the quality of clinical practice. Many members of these communities are also aware that electronic health records (EHRs) suffer limitations of data becoming poorly structured, biased, and unusable out of original context. This creates obstacles to the continuity of care, utility, quality improvement, and translational research. Analogous limitations to sharing objective data in other areas of the natural sciences have been successfully overcome by developing and using common ontologies. This White Paper presents the authors' rationale for the use of ontologies with computable semantics for the improvement of clinical data quality and EHR usability formulated for researchers with a stake in clinical and translational science and who are advocates for the use of information technology in medicine but at the same time are concerned by current major shortfalls. This White Paper outlines pitfalls, opportunities, and solutions and recommends increased investment in research and development of ontologies with computable semantics for a new generation of EHRs.

Inpatient EHR User Experience and Hospital EHR Safety Performance

Despite the broad adoption and optimization of electronic health record (EHR) systems across the continuum of care, serious usability and safety problems persist. To assess whether EHR safety performance is associated with EHR frontline user experience in a national sample of hospitals. This cross-sectional study included all US adult hospitals that used the National Quality Forum Leapfrog Health IT Safety Measure and also used the ARCH Collaborative EHR User experience survey from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2019. Data analysis was performed from September 2020 to November 2022. The primary outcomes were hospital performance on the Leapfrog Health IT Safety measure (overall and 10 subcomponents) and the ARCH collaborative frontline user experience scores (overall and 8 subcomponents). Ordinary least squares models with survey responses clustered by hospital were used to assess associations between the overall measures and their subcomponents. There were 112 hospitals and 5689 frontline user surveys included in the study. Hospitals scored a mean of 0.673 (range, 0.297-0.973) on the Leapfrog Health IT safety measure; the mean ARCH EHR user experience score was 3.377 (range, 1 [best] to 5 [worst]). The adjusted β coefficient between the overall safety score and overall user experience score was 0.011 (95% CI, 0.006-0.016). The ARCH overall score was also significantly associated with 10 subcategory scores of the Leapfrog Health IT safety score, and the overall Leapfrog score was associated with the 8 subcategory scores of the ARCH user experience score. This cross-sectional study found a positive association between frontline user-rated EHR usability and EHR safety performance. This finding suggests that improving EHR usability, which is a current well-known pain point for EHR users, could have direct benefits in terms of improved EHR safety.

Ctrl-C: a cross-sectional study of the electronic health record usage patterns of US oncology clinicians.

Despite some positive impact, the use of electronic health records (EHRs) has been associated with negative effects, such as emotional exhaustion. We sought to compare EHR use patterns for oncology vs nononcology medical specialists. In this cross-sectional study, we employed EHR usage data for 349 ambulatory health-care systems nationwide collected from the vendor Epic from January to August 2019. We compared note composition, message volume, and time in the EHR system for oncology vs nononcology clinicians. Compared with nononcology medical specialists, oncologists had a statistically significantly greater percentage of notes derived from Copy and Paste functions but less SmartPhrase use. They received more total EHR messages per day than other medical specialists, with a higher proportion of results and system-generated messages. Our results point to priorities for enhancing EHR systems to meet the needs of oncology clinicians, particularly as related to facilitating the complex documentation, results, and therapy involved in oncology care.

Electronic Health Records (EHR) Usability and User Experience Evaluation: A Case Study

Manual medical record documents have a high risk of leakage and loss. This is because the storage is only in the cupboard. In Indonesia, Electronic Health Records (EHR) have been widely adopted. Clinics, the Rumah Keluarga Sehat Clinic located in Jember Regency. The implemented EHR is a complement to the manual medical record. To obtain a successful EHR implementation, it is necessary to evaluate the usability and user experience. Usability testing is an evaluation method that involves end users in the system development process. This study aims to evaluate the usability and user experience of the EHR developed at the Rumah Keluarga Sehat Clinic. Tests were carried out using the System Usability Scale (SUS) and User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) instruments. Instruments were given to 7 respondents consisting of doctors, medical recorders, admins, and pharmacists at Rumah Keluarga Sehat Clinic, Jember. The results of the usability evaluation with SUS showed a score of 77.14 which indicated the Good category. And the UEQ results show above-average results on a scale (perspicuity and dependability), and excellent on 4 scales (attractiveness, efficiency, stimulation, and novelty). The results of the evaluation with 2 instruments show that the developed EHR has met the user's needs.

A Multiyear Survey Evaluating Clinician Electronic Health Record Satisfaction.

We assessed how clinician satisfaction with a vendor electronic health record (EHR) changed over time in the 4 years following the transition from a homegrown EHR system to identify areas for improvement. We conducted a multiyear survey of clinicians across a large health care system after transitioning to a vendor EHR. Eligible clinicians from the first institution to transition received a survey invitation by email in fall 2016 and then eligible clinicians systemwide received surveys in spring 2018 and spring 2019. The survey included items assessing ease/difficulty of completing tasks and items assessing perceptions of the EHR's value, usability, and impact. One item assessing overall satisfaction and one open-ended question were included. Frequencies and means were calculated, and comparison of means was performed between 2018 and 2019 on all clinicians. A multivariable generalized linear model was performed to predict the outcome of overall satisfaction. Response rates for the surveys ranged from 14 to 19%. The mean response from 3 years of surveys for one institution, Brigham and Women's Hospital, increased for overall satisfaction between 2016 (2.85), 2018 (3.01), and 2019 (3.21, p < 0.001). We found no significant differences in mean response for overall satisfaction between all responders of the 2018 survey (3.14) and those of the 2019 survey (3.19). Systemwide, tasks rated the most difficult included "Monitoring patient medication adherence," "Identifying when a referral has not been completed," and "Making a list of patients based on clinical information (e.g., problem, medication)." Clinicians disagreed the most with "The EHR helps me focus on patient care rather than the computer" and "The EHR allows me to complete tasks efficiently." Survey results indicate room for improvement in clinician satisfaction with the EHR. Usability of EHRs should continue to be an area of focus to ease clinician burden and improve clinician experience.

A guide to mitigating audit log-related risk in medical professional liability cases.

Following the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, use of electronic health records (EHRs) has become ubiquitous. Accordingly, one should expect most medical professional liability cases to involve review of patient records produced from EHRs. When questions arise regarding who was involved in care of a patient, what they knew and when, or the meaning, completeness, integrity, validity, timeliness, confidentiality, accuracy, or legitimacy of data, or ways that the EHR's user interface or automated clinical decision support tools may have contributed to the alleged events, one often turns to the EHR and its audit log. This manuscript discusses lines of defense incorporated into the design, development, implementation, and use of EHRs to ensure their integrity and the types of EHR transaction logs (e.g., audit log) that exist. Using these logs can help one answer questions that often arise in medical malpractice cases. Finally, there are "best practices" surrounding EHR audit logs that health care organizations should implement. When used appropriately, EHRs and their audit logs provide another source of information to help hospital risk managers, legal counsel, and EHR expert witnesses to investigate adverse incidents and, if needed, prosecute or defend clinicians and/or health care organizations involved in the patient's care.

A holistic view of facilitators and barriers of electronic health records usage from different perspectives: A qualitative content analysis approach.

Electronic health records (EHR) are seen as a promising endeavour, in spite of policies, designs, user rights and types of health data varying across countries. In many European countries, including Austria, EHR usage has fallen short when compared to the deployment plans. By adopting a qualitative approach, this research aimed to explore facilitators and barriers experienced by patients and physicians across the entire EHR usage process in Austria. Two studies were conducted: In Study 1, discussions were held with four homogeneously composed groups of patients (N = 30). In Study 2, eight expert semi-structured interviews were conducted with physicians to gain insights into potential facilitators and barriers Austrian physicians face when utilising personal EHR. A wide range of barriers and facilitators were identified along the entire EHR usage spectrum, emerging on three different levels: the micro-level (individual level), the meso-level (level of the EHR system) and the macro-level (level of the health system). EHR literacy was identified as a booster to support EHR adherence. Health providers were identified as crucial gatekeepers with regard to EHR usage. The implications for mutual benefits arising out of EHR usage among the triad of health policymakers, providers and patients for both theory and practice are discussed.

Physicians' Perspectives on EHR Usability: Results from Four Large Cross-Sectional Surveys from 2010 to 2021.

Usability and user experience are central quality attributes of electronic health record (EHR) systems. Usability evaluation studies typically focus on short-term use and situational usability, although feedback collected during operational use provides input for future information systems development. An abundance of studies report on physicians' dissatisfaction with the usability of their EHR systems and many show an association between poor usability and physician burnout. However, there is a scarcity of large long-term monitoring studies assessing end users' experiences with EHRs. We report on the results from four large (n=3,929-4,628) national cross-sectional usability surveys conducted among Finnish physicians in 2010, 2014, 2017, and 2021. The main finding was that the perceptions of physicians working in public health centres had changed for the better but those working in public hospitals reported similar or even more negative experiences in 2021 than in 2010-17; they rated only system responsiveness to inputs as having improved. Based on this finding, systematic research-based monitoring of EHR development from the end users' perspectives should be continued.