Perceptions of chief clinical information officers on the state of electronic health records systems interoperability in NHS England: a qualitative interview study.
Electronic health records
Health IT
Health policy
Interoperability
Patient safety
Qualitative research
Semi-structured interviews
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 08 2023
12 08 2023
Historique:
received:
12
12
2022
accepted:
02
08
2023
medline:
14
8
2023
pubmed:
13
8
2023
entrez:
12
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the era of electronic health records (EHR), the ability to share clinical data is a key facilitator of healthcare delivery. Since the introduction of EHRs, this aspect has been extensively studied from the perspective of healthcare providers. Less often explored are the day-to-day challenges surrounding the procurement, deployment, maintenance, and use of interoperable EHR systems, from the perspective of healthcare administrators, such as chief clinical information officers (CCIOs). Our study aims to capture the perceptions of CCIOs on the current state of EHR interoperability in the NHS, its impact on patient safety, the perceived facilitators and barriers to improving EHR interoperability, and what the future of EHR development in the NHS may entail. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2020 - October 2021. Convenience sampling was employed to recruit NHS England CCIOs. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was performed by two independent researchers to identify emerging themes. Fifteen CCIOs participated in the study. Participants reported that limited EHR interoperability contributed to the inability to easily access and transfer data into a unified source, thus resulting in data fragmentation. The resulting lack of clarity on patients' health status negatively impacts patient safety through suboptimal care coordination, duplication of efforts, and more defensive practice. Facilitators to improving interoperability included the recognition of the need by clinicians, patient expectations, and the inherent centralised nature of the NHS. Barriers included systems usability difficulties, and institutional, data management, and financial-related challenges. Looking ahead, participants acknowledged that realising that vision across the NHS would require a renewed focus on mandating data standards, user-centred design, greater patient involvement, and encouraging inter-organisational collaboration. Tackling poor interoperability will require solutions both at the technical level and in the wider policy context. This will involve demanding interoperability functionalities from the outset in procurement contracts, fostering greater inter-organisation cooperation on implementation strategies, and encouraging systems vendors to prioritise interoperability in their products. Only by comprehensively addressing these challenges would the full potential promised by the use of fully interoperable EHRs be realised.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In the era of electronic health records (EHR), the ability to share clinical data is a key facilitator of healthcare delivery. Since the introduction of EHRs, this aspect has been extensively studied from the perspective of healthcare providers. Less often explored are the day-to-day challenges surrounding the procurement, deployment, maintenance, and use of interoperable EHR systems, from the perspective of healthcare administrators, such as chief clinical information officers (CCIOs).
OBJECTIVE
Our study aims to capture the perceptions of CCIOs on the current state of EHR interoperability in the NHS, its impact on patient safety, the perceived facilitators and barriers to improving EHR interoperability, and what the future of EHR development in the NHS may entail.
METHODS
Semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2020 - October 2021. Convenience sampling was employed to recruit NHS England CCIOs. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was performed by two independent researchers to identify emerging themes.
RESULTS
Fifteen CCIOs participated in the study. Participants reported that limited EHR interoperability contributed to the inability to easily access and transfer data into a unified source, thus resulting in data fragmentation. The resulting lack of clarity on patients' health status negatively impacts patient safety through suboptimal care coordination, duplication of efforts, and more defensive practice. Facilitators to improving interoperability included the recognition of the need by clinicians, patient expectations, and the inherent centralised nature of the NHS. Barriers included systems usability difficulties, and institutional, data management, and financial-related challenges. Looking ahead, participants acknowledged that realising that vision across the NHS would require a renewed focus on mandating data standards, user-centred design, greater patient involvement, and encouraging inter-organisational collaboration.
CONCLUSION
Tackling poor interoperability will require solutions both at the technical level and in the wider policy context. This will involve demanding interoperability functionalities from the outset in procurement contracts, fostering greater inter-organisation cooperation on implementation strategies, and encouraging systems vendors to prioritise interoperability in their products. Only by comprehensively addressing these challenges would the full potential promised by the use of fully interoperable EHRs be realised.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37573388
doi: 10.1186/s12911-023-02255-8
pii: 10.1186/s12911-023-02255-8
pmc: PMC10423420
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
158Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Evans RS. Electronic Health Records: Then, Now, and in the Future. Yearb Med Inform. 2016;25:S48–61. https://doi.org/10.15265/IYS-2016-s006 .
doi: 10.15265/IYS-2016-s006
Wilson K, Khansa L. Migrating to electronic health record systems: a comparative study between the United States and the United Kingdom. Health Policy (New York). 2018;122:1232–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.08.013 .
doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.08.013
Hertzum M, Ellingsen G. The implementation of an electronic health record: Comparing preparations for Epic in Norway with experiences from the UK and Denmark. Int J Med Inform. 2019;129:312–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.06.026 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.06.026
pubmed: 31445272
Kuo MH, Kushniruk AW, Borycki E. A comparison of national health data interoperability approaches in Taiwan, Denmark and Canada. Electron Healthc 2011;10:18–29. https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/6387/Kuo_Mu-Hsing_EH_2011.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Rudin RS, Motala A, Goldzweig CL, et al. Usage and effect of health information exchange: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:803–11. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0877 .
doi: 10.7326/M14-0877
pubmed: 25437408
Walker J, Pan E, Johnston D, et al. The value of health care information exchange and interoperability. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;Suppl Web.: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.w5.10
Beštek M, Stanimirović D. Special topic interoperability and EHR: Combining openEHR, SNOMED, IHE, and continua as approaches to interoperability on national ehealth. Appl Clin Inform. 2017;8:810–25. https://doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2017-01-RA-0011 .
doi: 10.4338/ACI-2017-01-RA-0011
pubmed: 28837211
pmcid: 6220683
Bates DW, Gawande AA. Improving safety with information technology. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2526–34. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa020847 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa020847
pubmed: 12815139
Waterson P, Hoonakker PLT, Carayon P. Special issue on human factors and the implementation of health information technology (HIT): Comparing approaches across nations. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82:277–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.01.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.01.001
pubmed: 23375708
Honeyman M, Dunn D, McKenna H. A digital NHS?: an introduction to the digital agenda and plans for implementation. Kings Fund. 2016;39. http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/digital-nhs
Reed M, Huang J, Brand R, et al. Inpatient-Outpatient Shared Electronic Health Records: Telemedicine and Laboratory Follow-up after Hospital Discharge. Am J Manag Care. 2020;26:E327–32. https://doi.org/10.37765/ajmc.2020.88506 .
doi: 10.37765/ajmc.2020.88506
pubmed: 33094945
HIMSS. Interoperability in Healthcare | HIMSS. 2022. https://www.himss.org/resources/interoperability-healthcare Accessed 4 Feb 2022.
Cardoso L, Marins F, Portela F, et al. The Next Generation of Interoperability Agents in Healthcare. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11:5349. https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH110505349 .
doi: 10.3390/IJERPH110505349
pubmed: 24840351
pmcid: 4053905
Tolk A, Diallo SY, Turnitsa CD. Applying the Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model in Support of Integratability, Interoperability, and Composability for System-of-Systems Engineering. J Syst Cybern Informatics. 2007;5:65–74 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/242786377_Applying_the_Levels_of_Conceptual_Interoperability_Model_in_Support_of_Integratability_Interoperability_and_Composability_for_System-of-Systems_Engineering/file/60b7d51d2cfb1c0e2f.pdf .
Studeny J, Coustasse A. Personal health records: is rapid adoption hindering interoperability? Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2014;11(Summer):1e.
Reisman M. EHRs: The Challenge of Making Electronic Data Usable and Interoperable. PT. 2017;42:572–5 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28890644 .
de Mello BH, Rigo SJ, da Costa CA, et al. Semantic interoperability in health records standards: a systematic literature review. Health Technol (Berl). 2022;12:255–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-022-00639-w .
doi: 10.1007/s12553-022-00639-w
pubmed: 35103230
pmcid: 8791650
Torab-Miandoab A, Samad-Soltani T, Jodati A, et al. Interoperability of heterogeneous health information systems: a systematic literature review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023;23:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-023-02115-5 .
doi: 10.1186/s12911-023-02115-5
Rathert C, Porter TH, Mittler JN, et al. Seven years after Meaningful Use: Physicians’ and nurses’ experiences with electronic health records. Health Care Manage Rev. 2019;44:30–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000168 .
doi: 10.1097/HMR.0000000000000168
pubmed: 28614166
Elysee G, Herrin J, Horwitz LI. An observational study of the relationship between meaningful use-based electronic health information exchange, interoperability, and medication reconciliation capabilities. Med (United States). 2017;96. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008274
Evans RS. Electronic Health Records: Then, Now, and in the Future. Yearb Med Inform. 2016;S48–61. https://doi.org/10.15265/IYS-2016-s006
Wheatley B. Transforming care delivery through health information technology. Perm J. 2013;17:81–6. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/12-030 .
doi: 10.7812/TPP/12-030
pubmed: 23596377
pmcid: 3627785
Chen C, Permanente K. The Kaiser Permanente Electronic Health Record: Transforming And Streamlining Modalities Of Care. Published Online First. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.323 .
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.323
Justinia T. The UK’s National Programme for IT: Why was it dismantled? Heal Serv Manag Res. 2017;30:2–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951484816662492 .
doi: 10.1177/0951484816662492
Chang F, Gupta N. Progress in electronic medical record adoption in Canada. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61:1076–84.
pubmed: 27035020
pmcid: 4677946
Clarke A, Watt I, Sheard L, et al. Implementing electronic records in NHS secondary care organizations in England: Policy and progress since 1998. Br Med Bull. 2017;121:95–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldw055 .
doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldw055
pubmed: 28043952
Wachter RM. aking IT work : harnessing the power of health IT to improve care in England. Natl Advis Gr Heal Inf Technol Engl. 2016;71. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/550866/Wachter_Review_Accessible.pdf .
Eason K, Waterson P. The implications of e-health system delivery strategies for integrated healthcare: Lessons from England. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82:e96–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.11.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.11.004
pubmed: 23266062
McCrorie C, Benn J, Johnson OA, et al. Staff expectations for the implementation of an electronic health record system: A qualitative study using normalisation process theory. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-019-0952-3 .
doi: 10.1186/s12911-019-0952-3
NHS England. Safer Hospitals Safer Wards: Achieving an Intregratd Digital Care Record. https://www.rcslt.org/wp-content/uploads/media/Project/RCSLT/safer-hospitals-safer-wards.pdf .
Warren LR, Clarke JM, Arora S, et al. Improving data sharing between acute hospitals in England: an overview of health record system distribution and retrospective observational analysis of inter-hospital transitions of care. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e031637. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031637 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031637
pubmed: 31806611
pmcid: 7008454
McAlearney AS, Song PH, Robbins J, et al. Moving from good to great in ambulatory electronic health record implementation. J Healthc Qual. 2010;32:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-1474.2010.00107.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1945-1474.2010.00107.x
pubmed: 20854358
Babbott S, Manwell LB, Brown R, et al. Electronic medical records and physician stress in primary care: Results from the MEMO Study. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2014;21:100–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001875 .
doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001875
Thakkar M, Davis DC. Risks, Barriers, and Benefits of EHR Systems: A Comparative Study Based on Size of Hospital. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2006;3:5. pmc/articles/PMC2047303/ Accessed 5 Nov 2022.
pubmed: 18066363
pmcid: 2047303
Wani D, Malhotra M. Does the meaningful use of electronic health records improve patient outcomes? J Oper Manag. 2018;60:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2018.06.003 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2018.06.003
Iroju O, Soriyan A, Gambo I, et al. Interoperability in healthcare: benefits, challenges and resolutions. Int J Innov Appl Stud. 2013;3:262–70 http://www.ijias.issr-journals.org/abstract.php?article=IJIAS-13-090-01 .
Boonstra A, Broekhuis M. Barriers to the acceptance of electronic medical records by physicians from systematic review to taxonomy and interventions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:231. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-231 .
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-231
pubmed: 20691097
pmcid: 2924334
Colicchio TK, Cimino JJ, Del Fiol G. Unintended consequences of nationwide electronic health record adoption: Challenges and opportunities in the post-meaningful use era. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21:1–9. https://doi.org/10.2196/13313 .
doi: 10.2196/13313
Health Education England. The topol review: Preparing the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future. An independent report on behalf of the secretary of state for health and social care. Nhs. 2019;102. https://topol.hee.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/HEE-Topol-Review-2019.pdf
Health UD of. CCIO Role – Resource pack chief clinical information officer description of role indicative qualifications CCIO role – resource pack indicative links to the NHS knowledge and skills framework ( KSF ). 2010. https://www.digitalhealth.net/includes/images/Document_Library0365/CCIO_role_resource_pack_Clinical_Informaticist_job_description.pdf .
NHS England » The role of CCIOs in Digital Transformation of the NHS. https://www.england.nhs.uk/blog/the-role-of-ccios-in-digital-transformation-of-the-nhs/ Accessed 4 Sep 2022.
Kannry J, Fridsma D. The Chief Clinical Informatics Officer (CCIO). J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2016;23:435–435. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw034 .
doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw034
Britten N. Qualitative Research: Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ. 1995;311:251. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.6999.251 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.6999.251
pubmed: 7627048
pmcid: 2550292
Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, et al. COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies). Guidel Report Heal Res A User’s Man. 2014; 214–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118715598.CH21
Gheorghiu B, Hagens S. Measuring interoperable EHR adoption and maturity: a Canadian example. Published Online First. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0247-x .
doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0247-x
Nordo AH, Levaux HP, Becnel LB, et al. Use of EHRs data for clinical research: Historical progress and current applications. Learn Heal Syst. 2019; 3. https://doi.org/10.1002/LRH2.10076
Lehne M, Sass J, Essenwanger A, et al. Why digital medicine depends on interoperability. Npj Digit Med. 2019;2:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0158-1 .
doi: 10.1038/s41746-019-0158-1
Neves AL, Poovendran D, Freise L, et al. Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on the secondary use of health records to improve quality and safety of care: a qualitative study in England (Preprint). J Med Internet Res. 2019;21:1–10. https://doi.org/10.2196/14135 .
doi: 10.2196/14135
Sandhu E, Weinstein S, McKethan A, et al. Secondary uses of electronic health record data: Benefits and barriers. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2012;38:34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1553-7250(12)38005-7 .
doi: 10.1016/S1553-7250(12)38005-7
pubmed: 22324189
Nordo AH, Eisenstein EL, Hawley J, et al. A comparative effectiveness study of eSource used for data capture for a clinical research registry. Int J Med Inform. 2017;103:89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJMEDINF.2017.04.015 .
doi: 10.1016/J.IJMEDINF.2017.04.015
pubmed: 28551007
pmcid: 5942198
Bloom BM, Pott J, Thomas S, et al. Usability of electronic health record systems in UK EDs. Emerg Med J. 2021;38:410–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2020-210401 .
doi: 10.1136/emermed-2020-210401
pubmed: 33658268
Ratwani RM, Hettinger AZ, Fairbanks RJ. Barriers to comparing the usability of electronic health records. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2017;24:e191–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw117 .
doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw117
Adams KT, Pruitt Z, Kazi S, et al. Identifying Health Information Technology Usability Issues Contributing to Medication Errors Across Medication Process Stages. J Patient Saf. 2021;17:e988–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000868 .
doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000868
pubmed: 34009868
Herout J, Baggetta D, Cournoyer A, et al. Potential impact of data source and interoperability messaging on health information technology (HIT) users: a study series from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. BMJ Heal Care Informatics. 2019;26:e000014. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2019-000014 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2019-000014
Meyer R, Lovis C. Interoperability in hospital information systems: A return-on-investment study comparing CPOE with and without laboratory integration. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;169:320–4. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-806-9-320 .
doi: 10.3233/978-1-60750-806-9-320
pubmed: 21893765
Magrabi F, Liaw ST, Arachi D, et al. Identifying patient safety problems associated with information technology in general practice: An analysis of incident reports. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25:870–80. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004323 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004323
pubmed: 26543068
Bhartiya S, Mehrotra D. Exploring interoperability approaches and challenges in healthcare data exchange. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics). 2013;8040:52–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39844-5_8/COVER .
doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39844-5_8/COVER
Sittig DF, Belmont E, Singh H. Improving the safety of health information technology requires shared responsibility: It is time we all step up. Healthcare. 2018;6:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2017.06.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2017.06.004
pubmed: 28716376
Castillo AF, Sirbu M, Davis AL. Vendor of choice and the effectiveness of policies to promote health information exchange. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3230-7 .
doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3230-7
Nguyen OK, Kruger J, Greysen SR, et al. Understanding how to improve collaboration between hospitals and primary care in postdischarge care transitions: A qualitative study of primary care leaders’ perspectives. J Hosp Med. 2014;9:700–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2257 .
doi: 10.1002/jhm.2257
pubmed: 25211608
NHS. How to get your medical records - NHS. https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/about-the-nhs/how-to-get-your-medical-records/ Accessed 29 Nov 2022.
Jormanainen V. Large-scale implementation of the national Kanta service in Finland 2010-2018 with special focus on electronic prescription. 2023. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-8864-9 , http://hdl.handle.net/10138/353785 .
Reis ZSN, Maia TA, Marcolino MS, et al. Is there evidence of cost benefits of electronic medical records, standards, or interoperability in hospital information systems? overview of systematic reviews. JMIR Med Informatics. 2017;5:e26. https://doi.org/10.2196/medinform.7400 .
doi: 10.2196/medinform.7400
Rahurkar S, Vest JR, Menachemi N. Despite The Spread Of Health Information Exchange, There Is Little Evidence Of Its Impact On Cost, Use. And Quality Of Care Health Aff. 2015;34:477–83. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0729 .
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0729
Park JSY, Sharma RA, Poulis B, et al. Barriers to electronic medical record implementation: a comparison between ophthalmology and other surgical specialties in Canada. Can J Ophthalmol. 2017;52:503–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2017.02.018 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2017.02.018
pubmed: 28985812
Devine EB, Totten AM, Gorman P, et al. Health information exchange use (1990–2015): a systematic review. eGEMs. 2017;5:27. https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.249
Hersh WR, Totten AM, Eden KB, et al. Outcomes From Health Information Exchange: Systematic Review and Future Research Needs. JMIR Med Informatics. 2015;3:e39. https://doi.org/10.2196/medinform.5215 .
doi: 10.2196/medinform.5215