User Perceptions and Use of an Enhanced Electronic Health Record in Rwanda With and Without Clinical Alerts: Cross-sectional Survey.
HIV/AIDS
Rwanda
eHealth
electronic health record
implementation science
survey
Journal
JMIR medical informatics
ISSN: 2291-9694
Titre abrégé: JMIR Med Inform
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101645109
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 May 2022
03 May 2022
Historique:
received:
22
07
2021
accepted:
31
01
2022
revised:
08
01
2022
entrez:
3
5
2022
pubmed:
4
5
2022
medline:
4
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Electronic health records (EHRs) have been implemented in many low-resource settings but lack strong evidence for usability, use, user confidence, scalability, and sustainability. This study aimed to evaluate staff use and perceptions of an EHR widely used for HIV care in >300 health facilities in Rwanda, providing evidence on factors influencing current performance, scalability, and sustainability. A randomized, cross-sectional, structured interview survey of health center staff was designed to assess functionality, use, and attitudes toward the EHR and clinical alerts. This study used the associated randomized clinical trial study sample (56/112, 50% sites received an enhanced EHR), pulling 27 (50%) sites from each group. Free-text comments were analyzed thematically using inductive coding. Of the 100 participants, 90 (90% response rate) were interviewed at 54 health centers: 44 (49%) participants were clinical and 46 (51%) were technical. The EHR top uses were to access client data easily or quickly (62/90, 69%), update patient records (56/89, 63%), create new patient records (49/88, 56%), generate various reports (38/85, 45%), and review previous records (43/89, 48%). In addition, >90% (81/90) of respondents agreed that the EHR made it easier to make informed decisions, was worth using, and has improved patient information quality. Regarding availability, (66/88) 75% said they could always or almost always count on the EHR being available, whereas (6/88) 7% said never/almost never. In intervention sites, staff were significantly more likely to update existing records (P=.04), generate summaries before (P<.001) or during visits (P=.01), and agree that "the EHR provides useful alerts, and reminders" (P<.01). Most users perceived the EHR as well accepted, appropriate, and effective for use in low-resource settings despite infrastructure limitation in 25% (22/88) of the sites. The implementation of EHR enhancements can improve the perceived usefulness and use of key functions. Successful scale-up and use of EHRs in small health facilities could improve clinical documentation, care, reporting, and disease surveillance in low- and middle-income countries.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Electronic health records (EHRs) have been implemented in many low-resource settings but lack strong evidence for usability, use, user confidence, scalability, and sustainability.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate staff use and perceptions of an EHR widely used for HIV care in >300 health facilities in Rwanda, providing evidence on factors influencing current performance, scalability, and sustainability.
METHODS
METHODS
A randomized, cross-sectional, structured interview survey of health center staff was designed to assess functionality, use, and attitudes toward the EHR and clinical alerts. This study used the associated randomized clinical trial study sample (56/112, 50% sites received an enhanced EHR), pulling 27 (50%) sites from each group. Free-text comments were analyzed thematically using inductive coding.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 100 participants, 90 (90% response rate) were interviewed at 54 health centers: 44 (49%) participants were clinical and 46 (51%) were technical. The EHR top uses were to access client data easily or quickly (62/90, 69%), update patient records (56/89, 63%), create new patient records (49/88, 56%), generate various reports (38/85, 45%), and review previous records (43/89, 48%). In addition, >90% (81/90) of respondents agreed that the EHR made it easier to make informed decisions, was worth using, and has improved patient information quality. Regarding availability, (66/88) 75% said they could always or almost always count on the EHR being available, whereas (6/88) 7% said never/almost never. In intervention sites, staff were significantly more likely to update existing records (P=.04), generate summaries before (P<.001) or during visits (P=.01), and agree that "the EHR provides useful alerts, and reminders" (P<.01).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Most users perceived the EHR as well accepted, appropriate, and effective for use in low-resource settings despite infrastructure limitation in 25% (22/88) of the sites. The implementation of EHR enhancements can improve the perceived usefulness and use of key functions. Successful scale-up and use of EHRs in small health facilities could improve clinical documentation, care, reporting, and disease surveillance in low- and middle-income countries.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35503526
pii: v10i5e32305
doi: 10.2196/32305
pmc: PMC9115652
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e32305Subventions
Organisme : CGH CDC HHS
ID : U01 GH000782
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
©Hamish S F Fraser, Michael Mugisha, Eric Remera, Joseph Lune Ngenzi, Janise Richards, Xenophon Santas, Wayne Naidoo, Christopher Seebregts, Jeanine Condo, Aline Umubyeyi. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (https://medinform.jmir.org), 03.05.2022.
Références
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006;:529-33
pubmed: 17238397
Lancet HIV. 2016 Feb;3(2):e76-84
pubmed: 26847229
Pediatrics. 2013 Mar;131(3):e789-96
pubmed: 23439898
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;160(Pt 1):585-9
pubmed: 20841754
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 Jul-Aug;10(4):295-303
pubmed: 12668697
Healthc Inform Res. 2017 Jan;23(1):60-66
pubmed: 28261532
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015 Mar;22(2):479-88
pubmed: 25769683
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2016 Jul;35(7):767-71
pubmed: 27031258
PLoS Med. 2010 Aug 10;7(8):
pubmed: 20711476
JMIR Med Inform. 2015 May 25;3(2):e22
pubmed: 26007237
JMIR Med Inform. 2018 Apr 18;6(2):e22
pubmed: 29669709
BMJ. 2004 Nov 13;329(7475):1142-6
pubmed: 15539669
J Med Internet Res. 2007 Oct 22;9(4):e29
pubmed: 17951213
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 12;9(11):e112261
pubmed: 25390044