Through electronic health record implementation, national healthcare systems are aiming for care integration and enhancement. However, the path to large-scale electronic health record implementation is seldom smooth, involving multiple stakeholders with diverse interests and influences. This study proposes a framework that draws on both stakeholder and institutional theories to understand the complex dynamics of stakeholder interactions and institutional pressures over time during electronic health record systems implementation. This framework is utilized to analyze the national electronic health record programs of Singapore and England, which provide contrasting perspectives on how two top-down system implementations took place with different outcomes. Our results suggest that in the Singapore case, the presence of boundary spanners, supporting implementation agency that included IT staff from healthcare organizations, and greater engagement with medical professionals were associated with more positive dynamics of stakeholder interactions (e.g. limited pushback from professionals or the press) during electronic health record implementation than in England. Differences in the healthcare structures and systems, electronic health record project organization, and the combined influences of institutional pressures shed light on the varying implementation paths and outcomes in the two cases. This study adds to the health information technology literature through a comparative examination of the organizational and social processes during complex national healthcare integration projects. It also contributes to the institutional and stakeholder literatures in several ways, in particular by depicting the processes and outcomes of the dynamics of isomorphic pressures played out under different institutional conditions. Finally, our proposed framework provides a useful conceptual tool for analyzing such complex IT implementations across multiple stakeholders.

ObjectivesTo compare prevalence and types of dispensing errors and pharmacists’ labelling enhancements, for prescriptions transmitted electronically versus paper prescriptions.DesignNaturalistic stepped wedge study.Setting15 English community pharmacies.InterventionElectronic transmission of prescriptions between prescriber and pharmacy.Main outcome measuresPrevalence of labelling errors, content errors and labelling enhancements (beneficial additions to the instructions), as identified by researchers visiting each pharmacy.ResultsOverall, we identified labelling errors in 5.4% of 16 357 dispensed items, and content errors in 1.4%; enhancements were made for 13.6%. Pharmacists also edited the label for a further 21.9% of electronically transmitted items. Electronically transmitted prescriptions had a higher prevalence of labelling errors (7.4% of 3733 items) than other prescriptions (4.8% of 12 624); OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.76). There was no difference for content errors or enhancements. The increase in labelling errors was mainly accounted for by errors (mainly at one pharmacy) involving omission of the indication, where specified by the prescriber, from the label. A sensitivity analysis in which these cases (n=158) were not considered errors revealed no remaining difference between prescription types.ConclusionsWe identified a higher prevalence of labelling errors for items transmitted electronically, but this was predominantly accounted for by local practice in a single pharmacy, independent of prescription type. Community pharmacists made labelling enhancements to about one in seven dispensed items, whether electronically transmitted or not. Community pharmacists, prescribers, professional bodies and software providers should work together to agree how items should be dispensed and labelled to best reap the benefits of electronically transmitted prescriptions. Community pharmacists need to ensure their computer systems are promptly updated to help reduce errors.

BackgroundThe Electronic Prescription Service Release 2 (EPS2) in England has been designed to provide electronic transmission of digitally-signed prescriptions between primary care providers, with the intent on removing the large amounts of paper currently exchanged. As part of a wider evaluation of the EPS service, we wished to explore pharmacists’ experience with the new system and their perceptions of its benefits and any associated problems.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with community pharmacists using EPS2. We used a purposive sampling technique to obtain views from pharmacists working in pharmacies with a range of sizes and locations and to include both independent pharmacies and multiples. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using grounded theory to identify the main factors that have influenced deployment and implementation in the eyes of respondents. QSR Nvivo was used as to aid in this process.ResultsIt became apparent from the analysis that respondents perceived a wide range of advantages of EPS including improved safety, stock control, time management and improved relationships between pharmacy and General Practice staff. Respondents did not perceive a large difference in terms of work processes or development of their professional role. A large number of problems had been experienced in relation to both the technology itself and the way it was used by General Practices. It became apparent that work-around procedures had been developed for dealing with these issues but that not all these problems were perceived as having been addressed sufficiently at source. This sometimes had implications for the extent of EPS2 use and also limited some of the potential advantages of the EPS2 system, such as reduced effort in the management of prescription reimbursement. Respondents made suggestions for future improvements to EPS2. While interview data demonstrated that there were some feedback procedures in place, these were not regarded as being sufficient by the majority of respondents.ConclusionsWhilst pharmacists perceived a wide range of benefits of EPS, a large number of problems had been experienced. Despite these difficulties, no pharmacists expressed an overall negative view.

Background Prescribing errors in primary care are problematic. The electronic prescription service (EPS) is an English electronic system linking prescribing, dispensing and reimbursement, designed to rectify some of the problems associated with paper-based prescribing. Objective To document the numbers and types of interventions made by community pharmacists and their staff using EPS release 2 (EPSR2), compare these with those made for other prescription types, and comment on potential effects of EPSR2 on pharmacy practice. Methods We invited staff in 15 community pharmacies to record problems encountered arising from failures in prescribing, dispensing or supply systems for prescribed medication, for a 2 week period. Results Eight pharmacies participated, of which five used EPSR2. These pharmacies reported 69 problems with 68 prescriptions (median 7.5 problems per pharmacy, range 2–22). A total of 33 problems were clinical in nature and 6 were organisational or logistical in origin. Thirty unsigned prescriptions were reported, all non-EPSR2. Of the 69 problems, eight were primarily related to EPSR2 functionality. Conclusion EPSR2 should reduce the number of unsigned prescriptions in circulation. However, prescribers should avoid the use of Latin abbreviations that cannot be interpreted directly by patients, and consider the compatibility of regularly prescribed items with the NHS dictionary of medicines and devices.

BackgroundThe Electronic Prescription Service release Two (EPS2) is a new national healthcare information and communication technology in England that aims to deliver effective prescription writing, dispensing and reimbursement service to benefit patients. The aim of the study was to explore initial user experiences of Community Pharmacists (CPs) using EPS2.MethodsWe conducted nonparticipant observations and interviews in eight EPS2 early adopter community pharmacies classified as ‘first-of-type’ in midlands and northern regions in England. We interviewed eight pharmacists and two dispensers in addition to 56 hours recorded nonparticipant observations as field notes. Line-by-line coding and thematic analysis was conducted on the interview transcripts and field notes.ResultsCPs faced two types of challenge. The first was to do with missing electronic prescriptions. This was sometimes very disrupting to work practice, but pharmacists considered it a temporary issue resolvable with minor modifications to the system and user familiarity. The second was to do with long term design-specific issues. Pharmacists could only overcome these by using the system in ways not intended by the developers. Some felt that these issues would not exist had ‘real’ users been involved in the initial development. The issues were: 1) printing out electronic prescriptions (tokens) to dispense from for safe dispensing practices and to free up monitors for other uses, 2) logging all dispensing activities with one user’s Smartcard for convenience and use all human resources in the pharmacy, and, 3) problematic interface causing issues with endorsing prescriptions and claiming reimbursements.ConclusionsWe question if these unintended uses and barriers would have occurred had a more rigorous user-centric principles been applied at the earlier stages of design and implementation of EPS. We conclude that, since modification can occur at the evaluation stage, there is still scope for some of these barriers to be corrected to address the needs, and enhance the experiences, of CPs using the service, and make recommendations on how current challenges could be resolved.