Factors Influencing Problem List Use in Electronic Health Records—Application of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

Abstract

Background Problem-oriented electronic health record (EHR) systems can help physicians to track a patient's status and progress, and organize clinical documentation, which could help improving quality of clinical data and enable data reuse. The problem list is central in a problem-oriented medical record. However, current problem lists remain incomplete because of the lack of end-user training and inaccurate content of underlying terminologies. This leads to modifications of diagnosis code descriptions and use of free-text notes, limiting reuse of data. Objectives We aimed to investigate factors that influence acceptance and actual use of the problem list, and used these to propose recommendations, to increase the value of problem lists for (re)use. Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted with physicians, heads of medical departments, and data quality experts, who were invited through snowball sampling. The interviews were transcribed and coded. Comments were fitted in constructs of the validated framework unified theory of acceptance user technology (UTAUT), and were discussed in terms of facilitators and barriers. Results In total, 24 interviews were conducted. We found large variability in attitudes toward problem list use. Barriers included uncertainty about the responsibility for maintaining the problem list and little perceived benefits. Facilitators included the (re)design of policies, improved (peer-to-peer) training to increase motivation, and positive peer feedback and monitoring. Motivation is best increased through sharing benefits relevant in the care process, such as providing overview, timely generation of discharge or referral letters, and reuse of data. Furthermore, content of the underlying terminology should be improved and the problem list should be better presented in the EHR system. Conclusion To let physicians accept and use the problem list, policies and guidelines should be redesigned, and prioritized by supervising staff. Additionally, peer-to-peer training on the benefits of using the problem list is needed.

Preliminary Research on the Social Attitudes toward AI’s Involvement in Christian Education in Vietnam: Promoting AI Technology for Religious Education

“…The in-depth interviews ensure rich and detailed information on the experiences and perceptions of interviewees (Oppong et al 2020). This method also allows researchers to investigate interviewees, attitudes, expectations, and concerns toward the implementation of AI innovation in religious education and practices (Wright and Headley 2021;Klappe et al 2020). The research separates the interviewees into six distinct groups, depending on their religious orientations and ages.…”

“…The interview was recorded by both audio and written documents, ensuring the validity of responses. We also kept track of the similarity of answers on the same questions by different participants to strengthen the validity (Oppong et al 2020;Klappe et al 2020).…”

Development of a Framework for Redesigning a Terminology Maintenance Process – Case Study in the Netherlands

“…However, even if there is an established maintenance process to update terminologies in a way that they reach full coverage, studies show that other issues relating to terminology use should also be solved, e.g. a poor search-functionality could also be reason for perceived incompleteness [18,19]. A strength of our study is that it involved all relevant stakeholders and interviews were performed until saturation was reached, allowing us to assume that we captured all bottlenecks.…”

Contextual property detection in Dutch diagnosis descriptions for uncertainty, laterality and temporality

“…Healthcare providers consider free-text documentation typically as important, because they have concerns that by recording structured data on the problem list important information could be omitted [ 15 ]. As a consequence, when healthcare providers do code diagnoses on the problem list, they may modify the description of these diagnoses or add details in free-text fields as they often find the default diagnosis description insufficient or because they cannot find the diagnosis they are looking for [ 4 , 16 ].…”

“…The context of the diagnoses in modified descriptions is crucial for determining the clinical status of a patient [ 17 – 20 ]. Previous research showed that healthcare providers describe levels of certainty in clinical free text, e.g., to specify a working diagnosis [ 16 , 20 – 24 ]. Certainty levels vary from affirmed (certain) to non-affirmed (uncertain) levels of speculation.…”