Instant availability of patient records, but diminished availability of patient information: A multi-method study of GP's use of electronic patient records

Abstract

Background: In spite of succesful adoption of electronic patient records (EPR) by Norwegian GPs, what constitutes the actual benefits and effects of the use of EPRs in the perspective of the GPs and patients has not been fully characterized. We wanted to study primary care physicians' use of electronic patient record (EPR) systems in terms of use of different EPR functions and the time spent on using the records, as well as the potential effects of EPR systems on the clinician-patient relationship.

The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: a systematic review of the evidence: Figure 1

“…Primary-care physicians in Norway felt that, although overall the EMR/EHR saved time compared to paper, many administrative tasks were now carried out by the physicians. 32 The EMR/EHR was easy to access but hard to search and efficiently review. The presentation of information within the EMR/EHR was identified as a major issue, including the need to organize notes and results by condition and chronologically, the need for reminders or checklists during the follow-up of chronic conditions, and the need to improve electronic communication between providers.…”

Supporting information retrieval from electronic health records: A report of University of Michigan’s nine-year experience in developing and using the Electronic Medical Record Search Engine (EMERSE)

“…17 Indeed, a paradox has been noted in the biomedical informatics literature that increased availability of electronic patient notes does not always lead to increased availability of information. 18 …”

Adherence factors to paperless primary healthcare: a focus group study

“…This evaluation of attitudes by the key user subgroups regarding the use of ICT and paperless records in primary healthcare included the qualitative method, which is becoming increasingly popular in health informatics research (1,4,8,13,31,(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50). The methodology applied to the analysis and the additional citation appraisal rounds enabled a more accurate evaluation of the data and consequently improved the quality and validity of the results.…”