Which functionalities are available in the electronic health record systems used by French general practitioners? An assessment study of 15 systems

International Journal of Medical Informatics

Volumn 83, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 37-46

  Darmon, David ^a   Sauvant, Rémy ^a   Staccini, Pascal ^a   Letrilliart, Laurent ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ CÔTE D'AZUR   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

Author keywords

Electronic health record; Evaluation study as a topic; General practice

Indexed keywords

EHEALTH; RECORDS MANAGEMENT;

CORE FUNCTIONALITY; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD SYSTEMS; EVALUATION CRITERIA; EVALUATION STUDY; GENERAL PRACTICE; GENERAL PRACTITIONERS; HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS;

QUALITY CONTROL;

ARTICLE; CONSULTATION; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FAMILY HISTORY; FRANCE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; GENERAL PRACTICE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; LABORATORY TEST; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT IDENTIFICATION; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE; PRESCRIPTION; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; VIGNETTE;

ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; EVALUATION STUDY AS A TOPIC; GENERAL PRACTICE;

ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FRANCE; GENERAL PRACTITIONERS; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84888439781     PISSN: 13865056     EISSN: 18728243     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.10.004     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Häyrinen K., Saranto K., Nykänen P. Definition, structure, content, use and impacts of electronic health records: a review of the research literature. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2008, 77:291-304.
2. ISO Technical Report (ISO-TR20514) Health Informatics, Electronic Health Record, Definition, Scope, and Context 2004.
3. Kern L.M., Barrón Y., Dhopeshwarkar R.V., Edwards A., Kaushal R. Electronic health records and ambulatory quality of care. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2013, 28:496-503.
4. Fokkens A.S., Wiegersma P.A., Reijneveld S.A. A structured registration program can be validly used for quality assessment in general practice. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2009, 9:241.
5. De Lusignan S., van Weel C. The use of routinely collected computer data for research in primary care: opportunities and challenges. Fam. Pract. 2006, 23:253-263.
6. De Clercq E. Problem-oriented patient record model as a conceptual foundation for a multi-professional electronic patient record. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2008, 77:565-575.
7. Weed L.L. Medical records that guide and teach. N. Engl. J. Med. 1968, 278:593-600.
8. Weed L.L. Medical Records, Medical Education, and Patient Care: The Problem-oriented Record as a Basic Tool 1970, Press of Case Western Reserve University, Distributed by Year Book Medical Publishers, Chicago.
9. Tang P.C. Institute of Medicine. Key Capabilities of an Electronic Health Record System Letter Report 2003, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
10. Van den Akker M., Buntinx F., Metsemakers J.F., Roos S., Knottnerus J.a. Multimorbidity in general practice: prevalence, incidence, and determinants of co-occurring chronic and recurrent diseases. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1998, 51:367-375.
11. CEN/TC 251 - Health informatics - System of concepts to support continuity of care - Part 1: Basic concepts Contents 2007.
12. De Clercq E. From a conceptual problem-oriented electronic patient record model to running systems: a nationwide assessment. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2008, 77:346-353.
13. Schiff G.D., Bates D.W. Can electronic clinical documentation help prevent diagnostic errors?. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 362:1066-1069.
14. Blumenthal D., Tavenner M. The meaningful use regulation for electronic health records. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363:501-504.
15. Cimino J. High-quality, standard, controlled healthcare terminologies come of age. Methods Inf. Med. 2011, 101-104.
16. A. Dobrev, M. Haesner, T. Hüsing, W. Korte, Benchmarking ICT use among General Practitioners in Europe, Bonn/Brussels: Empirica; 2008.
17. Hing E., Hsiao C.-J. Electronic medical record use by office-based physicians and their practices: United States, 2007. Natl. Health Stat. Rep. 2010, 1-11.
18. DesRoches C.M., Campbell E.G., Rao S.R., Donelan K., Ferris T.G., Jha A., et al. Electronic health records in ambulatory care-a national survey of physicians. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359:50-60.
19. Poon E.G., Wright A., Simon S.R., Jenter C.A., Kaushal R., Volk L.A., et al. Relationship between use of electronic health record features and health care quality: results of a statewide survey. Med. Care 2010, 48:203-209.
20. Wright A., Sittig D.F., Ash J.S., Sharma S., Pang J.E., Middleton B. Clinical decision support capabilities of commercially-available clinical information systems. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2009, 16:637-644.
21. Medical software 2012 online table Le Quotidien du Medecin 2012, Available at: http://www.lequotidiendumedecin.fr/gestion-informatique/tableau-2012-des-logiciels-medicaux-en-ligne (accessed 13.04.13), [in French].
22. EuroRec European Institute for Health Records 2013, Available at: http://www.eurorec.org/ (accessed 09.09.12).
23. The European Definition of GP/FM Wonca Europe 2013, Available at: http://www.woncaeurope.org/gp-definitions (accessed 18.09.13).
24. Lamberts H., Wood M. Icpc: International Classification of Primary Care 1990, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
25. Ferru P., Kandel O., et al. Dictionary of Consultation Results (revision 2003-04). Doc. Rech. Med. Gen. Paris: SFMG 2004, 62:3-54. [in French].
26. Wonca International Classification Committee Wonca International Classification Committee. ICPC-2: International Classification of Primary Care (2e) 1998, Oxford University Press, New York.
27. ICD-10 2nd edition Downloadable version International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Second Edition - WHO - OMS. Available at: (accessed 12.04.13). http://apps.who.int/bookorders/anglais/detart1.jsp%3Fsesslan=1%26codlan=1%26codcol=80%26codcch=01.
28. SPSS for Windows, Version 16.0 2013, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
29. Einbinder L.H., Remz J.B., Cochran D. Mapping clinical scenarios to functional requirements: a tool for evaluating clinical information systems. Proceedings: a Conference of the American Medical Informatics Association/AMIA Annual Fall Symposium 1996, 747-751.
30. McGinn C.A., Grenier S., Duplantie J., Shaw N., Sicotte C., Mathieu L., et al. Comparison of user groups' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2011, 9:46.
31. Edsall R.L., Adler K.G. The 2012 EHR User Satisfaction Survey: responses from 3,088 family physicians. Fam Pract Manag. 2012, 19:23-30.
32. Holroyd-Leduc J.M., Lorenzetti D., Straus S.E., Sykes L., Quan H. The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: a systematic review of the evidence. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2011, 18:732-737.
33. Holbrook A., Keshavjee K., Troyan S., Pray M., Ford P.T. Applying methodology to electronic medical record selection. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2003, 71:43-50.
34. Lorenzi N.M., Kouroubali A., Detmer D.E., Bloomrosen M. How to successfully select and implement electronic health records (EHR) in small ambulatory practice settings. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2009, 9:15.
35. Holanda A.A., do Carmo E., Sá H.L., Vieira A.P.G.F., Catrib A.M.F. Use and satisfaction with electronic health record by primary care physicians in a health district in Brazil. J. Med. Syst. 2012, 36:3141-3149.
36. Lamberts H., Hofmans-Okkes I. The core of computer based patient records in family practice: episodes of care classified with ICPC. Int. J. Biomed. Comput. 1996, 42:35-41.
37. Gill J., Chearman T., Carey M., Nijjer S., Cross F. Presenting patient data in the electronic care record: the role of timelines. JRSM Short Rep. 2010, 1:29.
38. Orueta J.F., Lopez-De-Munain J., Báez K., Aiarzaguena J.M., Aranguren J.I., Pedrero E. Application of the ambulatory care groups in the primary care of a European national health care system: does it work?. Med. Care 1999, 37:238-248.
39. French Republic Notice to holders of authorization for releasing drugs for human use and to pharmacists responsible for pharmaceutical establishments mentioned in article R. 5124-2 CSP. JORF 2007, 64:4950. [in French]. Available at: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000275479&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id (accessed 04.10.13).
40. French Republic Bylaw of 22 September 2011 approving the national convention of general practitioners and specialists. JORF 2011, 223:16080. [in French]. Available at: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000024803740 (accessed 04.10.13).
41. Ramaiah M., Subrahmanian E., Sriram R.D., Lide B.B. Workflow and electronic health records in small medical practices. Perspect Health Inf Manag 2012, 9:1-17.
42. Kljakovic M., Abernethy D., de Ruiter I. Quality of diagnostic coding and information flow from hospital to general practice. Inform. Prim. Care 2004, 12:227-234.
43. García García M., Valenzuela Mújica M.P., Martínez Ocaña J.C., Otero López M.D.S., Ponz Clemente E., López Alba T., et al. Results of a coordination and shared clinical information programme between primary care and nephrology. Nefrología 2011, 31:84-90.
44. Häyrinen K., Saranto K. Patients' needs assessment documentation in multidisciplinary electronic health records. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2010, 160:269-273.
45. Ward L., Innes M. Electronic medical summaries in general practice--considering the patient's contribution. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2003, 53:293-297.
46. Knaup P., Bott O., Kohl C., Lovis C., Garde S. Electronic patient records: moving from islands and bridges towards electronic health records for continuity of care. Yearb. Med. Inform. 2007, 3:34-46.
47. Swan M. Emerging patient-driven health care models: an examination of health social networks, consumer personalized medicine and quantified self-tracking. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6:492-525.
48. Villalba E., Casas I., Abadie F., Lluch M. Integrated personal health and care services deployment: experiences in eight European countries. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2013, 82:626-635.
49. Berner E.S. Clinical decision support systems: State of the Art. AHRQ Publication No. 09-0069-EF June 2009, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland,.
50. French Health authority Reference document for certification by testing decision support system for prescribing in ambulatory medecine par essai de type des logiciels d'aide à la prescription en médecine ambulatoire 2013, [in French]. Available at: http://http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/referentiel_certif_lap.pdf (accessed 01.10.13).
51. De Clercq E., Piette P., Strobbe J., Roland M., Vandenberghe A., Steenackers J., et al. Setting up a common architecture for EPR in primary care: the Belgian experience. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2002, 90:215-219.
52. Blumenthal D. Stimulating the adoption of health information technology. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 360:1477-1479.
53. Chevreul K., Durand-zaleski I., Hernández-quevedo C. Health system review. Erasmus 2010, 12:93-103.
54. Lusignan S.De., Chan T. The development of primary care information technology in the United Kingdom. J. Ambul. Care Manage. 2008, 31:201-210.
55. Meade B., Buckley D., Boland M. What factors affect the use of electronic patient records by Irish GPs?. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2009, 78:551-558.
56. Bouamrane M-M., Mair F.S. A study of general practitioners' perspectives on electronic medical records systems in NHSScotland. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 2013, 13:58.
57. Ellaway R.H., Graves L., Greene P.S. Medical education in an electronic health record-mediated world. Med. Teach. 2013, 35:282-286.
58. Grabenbauer L., Skinner A., Windle J. Electronic health record adoption-maybe it's not about the money: physician super-users, electronic health records and patient care. Appl. Clin. Inform. 2011, 2:460-471.
59. SESAM-Vitale Dashboard Data transmission from EHR systems 2013, [in French]. Available at: http://www.sesam-vitale.fr/programme/tablo_pdm.asp#note3 (accessed 10.09.13).
60. Nayyar G. EHRs: why one size doesn't fit all HITECH Act regulations should not be adopted in isolation, but rather customized to organizations and their practitioners. Health Manage. Technol. 2011, 32:16-17.