Differing Faculty and Housestaff Acceptance of an Electronic Health Record One-Year After Implementation

Studies in Health Technology and Informatics

Volumn 107, Issue , 2004, Pages 1300-1303

  Hier, Daniel B ^a   Rothschild, Adam ^a   LeMaistre, Anne ^b   Keeler, Joy ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

attitudes to computers; computerized patient records; Surveys

Indexed keywords

MEDICAL COMPUTING; RECORDS MANAGEMENT;

ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; CHICAGO; COMPUTERIZED PATIENT RECORD; ELECTRONIC HEALTH; HEALTH RECORDS; MEDICAL RECORD; PHYSICIAN'S ACCEPTANCE; TIME-SPENT; WHETHER DIFFERENCES; WRITTEN SURVEYS;

EHEALTH;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; GROUP PRACTICE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL SCHOOL; MEDICAL STAFF; TIME; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; CHICAGO; COMPUTER LITERACY; DATA COLLECTION; FACULTY, MEDICAL; GROUP PRACTICE; HOSPITALS, UNIVERSITY; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; MEDICAL STAFF, HOSPITAL; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 21644470248     PISSN: 09269630     EISSN: 18798365     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. Dick RS, Steen EB, Eds. The computer-based patient record: an essential technology for health care. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1991.
2. Bingham A: Computerized patient records benefit physician offices. Healthcare Financial Management 1997; 51: 68-70.
3. Berkowitz LL. Diagnosing doctors: four types of physicians require four approaches to promote clinical computing acceptance. Healthcare Informatics 1998; 15: 93-94.
4. Sitting DF, Kuperman GJ, Fiskio J. Evaluating Physician Satisfaction Regarding User Interactions with an Electronic Medical Record System. ProcAMIASymp. 1999; 400-4.
5. Folz-Murphy N, Partin M, Williams L, Harris CM, Lauer MS. Physician Use of an Ambulatory Medical Record System: Matching Form and Function. ProcAMIA Symp 1998; 260-4.
6. Lee F, Teich JM, Spurr CD, Bates DW. Implementation of Physician Order Entry: User Satisfaction and Self-reported Usage Patterns. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 1996; 3:42-55.
7. Ash JS, Gorman FN, Hersh WR, Lavelle M, Poulsen SB. Perceptions of House Officers Who Use Physician Order Entry. ProcAMIASymp. 1999;471-5.
8. Wager KA, Ornstein SM, Jenkins RG. Perceived value of computer-based patient records among clinician users. MD Comput. 1997; 14:334-340.
9. Gamm LD, Barsukiewicz CK, Dansky KH, Vasey JJ. Pre- and Post- Control Model Research on End-Users' Satisfaction with an Electronic Medical Record: Preliminary Results. ProcAMIASymp. 1998; 225-9.
10. Lenhart JG. An analysis of trends, perceptions, and use patterns of electronic medical records among US family practice residency programs. Fam Med. 2000; 32: 109-14.
11. Morrissey J. The EHR rising: As powerful computer engine cranks up, medical center can offer more efficient, integrated care. Modern Healthcare. 2000; 30:46-49.
12. Brown SH and Coney RD. Changes in Physicians' Computer Anxiety and Attitudes Related to Clinical Information System Use. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 1994; 1: 381-94.
13. O'Dell DV, Tape TG, Campbell JR. Increasing physician acceptance and use of the computerized ambulatory medical record. Proceedings Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, 1991; 848-852.
14. Hier DB. Physician buy-in for an EMR Healthcare Informatics. 2002; 19:37-40.