RESEARCH PAPER
Implementation of electronic medical records. Part 1 – impact on effectiveness of work of medical Staff
1,
2, 3
| 1 | Student Wydziału Pielęgniarstwa i Nauk o Zdrowiu, Uniwersytet Medyczny w Lublinie |
| 2 | Samodzielna Pracownia Metod Informatycznych i Zdalnego Nauczania, Uniwersytet Medyczny w Lublinie |
| 3 | Zakład Informatyki i Statystyki Zdrowia, Instytut Medycyny Wsi w Lublinie |
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Damian Marek Szymczyk
Wydział Pielęgniarstwa i Nauk o Zdrowiu, Uniwersytet Medyczny w Lublinie, Al. Racławickie 1, 20‑059 Lublin
Wydział Pielęgniarstwa i Nauk o Zdrowiu, Uniwersytet Medyczny w Lublinie, Al. Racławickie 1, 20‑059 Lublin
Med Og Nauk Zdr. 2013;19(3):319–323
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Information technology is increasingly more commonly considered as an important instrument for the improvement of the effectiveness and quality of health care, especially in evidence based medicine. From among all computer science solutions in the area of health care which are currently in use, the electronic medical records system (EMR) has a chance to bring about the greatest benefits. The direction of changes related with its implementation obviously depends on the medial staff, because they will use new solutions at work and will provide opinions concerning its efficacy.
Objective:
The objective of the survey was evaluation of the effect of using medical e-records on the effectiveness of work of the medical staff.
Material and Methods:
A survey concerning the use of electronic medical records was conducted in February 2013 at the Outpatient Department ‘Kamed’ in Katowice. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among physicians, nurses and medical records keepers.
Results:
Nearly 90% of respondents observed an increase in their work productivity and improvement of time management, and 70% confirmed reduction in the number of daily activities. Other, most frequently appreciated benefits are: facilitation of the circulation of (83.3%), and increase in their security (92.3%).
Conclusions:
Implementation of electronic medical records considerably increased the productivity of work of the medical staff. The study confirmed that physicians perceive fewer advantages of the implementation of EMR than nurses or medical records keepers.
Information technology is increasingly more commonly considered as an important instrument for the improvement of the effectiveness and quality of health care, especially in evidence based medicine. From among all computer science solutions in the area of health care which are currently in use, the electronic medical records system (EMR) has a chance to bring about the greatest benefits. The direction of changes related with its implementation obviously depends on the medial staff, because they will use new solutions at work and will provide opinions concerning its efficacy.
Objective:
The objective of the survey was evaluation of the effect of using medical e-records on the effectiveness of work of the medical staff.
Material and Methods:
A survey concerning the use of electronic medical records was conducted in February 2013 at the Outpatient Department ‘Kamed’ in Katowice. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among physicians, nurses and medical records keepers.
Results:
Nearly 90% of respondents observed an increase in their work productivity and improvement of time management, and 70% confirmed reduction in the number of daily activities. Other, most frequently appreciated benefits are: facilitation of the circulation of (83.3%), and increase in their security (92.3%).
Conclusions:
Implementation of electronic medical records considerably increased the productivity of work of the medical staff. The study confirmed that physicians perceive fewer advantages of the implementation of EMR than nurses or medical records keepers.
REFERENCES (21)
1.
Miller RH, Sim I. Physicians’ Use Of Electronic Medical Records: Barriers And Solutions. Health Affairs. 2004; 23 (2): 116–126.
2.
Holden RJ. What stands in the way of technology-mediated patient safety improvements? A study of facilitators and barriers to physicians› use of electronic health records. J Patient Safety. 2011; 7 (4): 193–203.
4.
Tynda M. Elektroniczny obieg dokumentów w jednostkach służby zdrowia. W: Wróbel Z, (red). Technologie informacyjne w medycynie. Katowice: Wyd. Uniwersytetu Śląskiego; 2008.
6.
Wojsyk K. Jakość danych w e-Rejestrach – kluczowym czynnikiem poprawności funkcjonowania systemów informacyjnych ochrony zdrowia. Biuletyn informacyjny CSIOZ. 2013; (8): 3–4.
7.
FairWarning. Canda: How Privacy Considerations Drive Patient Decision and Impact Patient Care Outcomes. (dostęp 2012.10.10) http:// www.fairwarning.com/Canada/whi... -PATIENT-SURVEY.pdf).
8.
Szymczyk D. Papierowa Robota. Źródło: http://www.cloud4med. pl/2013/03/07/papierowa-robota/ (dostęp: 2013.05.01).
10.
Nowak M. Doświadczenia we wdrażaniu Elektronicznej Dokumentacji Medycznej. II Konferencja pt. Elektroniczna Dokumentacja Medyczna – interoperacyjność i wdrażanie; 2012.07.2–3; Jachranka 2012.
13.
Menachemi N, Collum TH. Benefits and drawbacks of electronic health record systems. J Risk Manage Healthc Policy. 2011; 4: 47–55.
14.
DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Rao SR, Donelan K, Ferris TG, Jha A, Kaushal R. Levy DE, Rosenbaum S, Shields AE, Blumenthal D. Electronic Health Records in Ambulatory Care – A National Survey of Physicians. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359 (1): 50–60.
15.
Han H, Lopp L. Writing and reading in the electronic health record: an entirely new world. Medical Education Online 2013; 18. http://dx.doi. org/10.3402/meo.v18i0.18634 (dostęp 2013.03.04).
16.
Van der Meijden MJ, Tange H, Hasman A. Development and implementation of an EPR: how to encourage the users. Int J Med Inform. 2001; 64: 173–185.
17.
Zlabek JA, Wickus JW, Mathiason MA. Early cost and safety benefits of an inpatient electronic health record. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011; 18 (2): 169–172.
19.
Ustawa z dn. 28 kwietnia 2011 r. o systemie informacji w ochronie zdrowia. Dz. U. Nr 113, poz. 657.
20.
Ronquillo JR. How the Electronic Health Record Will Change the Future of Health Care. Yale J Biol Med. 2012; 85 (3): 379–386.
RELATED ARTICLE
