A systematic review of medical and non-medical practitioners' views of the impact of ehealth on shared care

European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 54-62

  Maclure, Katie ^a   Stewart, Derek ^a   Strath, Alison ^a  

^a ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA EXTRACTION; HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL CARE; ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE; PHARMACIST; PHYSICIAN; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLICATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; SHARED CARE; SOCIAL ASPECT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY; TELEHEALTH; ADOPTION; CHANGE MANAGEMENT; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DOCTOR NURSE RELATION; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; E-MAIL; EXTRACTION; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERNET; INTERVIEW; MANAGER; NOMENCLATURE; PHARMACY; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIVACY; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; SCREENING; SECONDARY HEALTH CARE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TELEMEDICINE; WORKLOAD; WORKPLACE;

EID: 84892859342     PISSN: 20479956     EISSN: 20479964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2013-000337     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Department of Health. Working for patients. London: HMSO, 1989.
2. Nolan M. Towards an ethos of interdisciplinary practice. BMJ 1995;10:305.
3. Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990;47:533-43.
4. Crown J. Review of prescribing, supply and administration of medicines. Final report. NHS Executive: Department of Health; 1999.
5. Clinical Resource Audit Group for the Scottish Office. Clinical Pharmacy Practice in Primary Care; a framework for the provision of community-based NHS pharmaceutical services. 1999.
6. Scottish Executive. The Right Medicine; A Strategy for Pharmaceutical Care in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, 2002.
7. Scottish Executive. Delivering for Health. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, 2005.
8. Darzi A. High quality care for all: NHS Next Stage Review final report. DH_085825 (June 30, 2008). date2008/date. http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm74/7432/7432.pdf (accessed 6 Jun 2009).
9. Centre for Workforce Intelligence. Annual Review April 2010 to March 2011. 2011.
10. Scottish Government. eHealth Strategy 2011-2017. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2011.
11. Department of Health. A report from the NHS Future Forum: Education and training. London: Department of Health, 2011.
12. European Commission. eHealth Action Plan 2012-2020 public consultation. [homepage on the Internet]. online: 2011]. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/health/ehealth_ap_consultation/index_en.htm (accessed 11 May).
13. World Health Organisation. eHealth Country Profiles. Geneva: WHO, 2011.
14. World Health Organisation. Definition of eHealth. [homepage on the Internet]. [updated 2011]. http://www.who.int/kms/initiatives/ehealth/en/ (accessed Apr 11).
15. European Commission Information Society. Definition of eHealth. [homepage on the Internet]. [updated 2011]. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/health/whatis_ehealth/index_en.htm (accessed April 11).
16. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, et al. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Science Med 2005;61:417-30.
17. May C. Chronic illness and intractability: professional-patient interactions in primary care. Chronic Illness 2005;1:15.
18. May C. A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care. BMC Health Serv Res 2006;6:86.
19. Rahimi B, Vimarlund V. Methods to evaluate health information systems in healthcare settings: A literature review. J Med Syst 2007;31:397-432.
20. Liddell A, Adshead S, Burgess E. Technology in the NHS. Transforming the patient's experience of care. London: King's Fund, 2008.
21. Clark JS, Mair FS, O'Donnell C, et al. E-health: implementation and evaluation research in Scotland-a scoping exercise. J Telemed Telecare 2008;14:119-21.
22. Boddy D, King G, Clark JS, et al. The influence of context and process when implementing e-health. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2009;9:9.
23. Gagnon M, Legare F, Labrecque M, et al. Interventions for promoting information and communication technologies adoption in healthcare professionals. Cochrane Library: Edited (no change to conclusions), published in. 2009; 2.
24. May C, Finch T, Mair F, et al. Towards a wireless patient: chronic illness, scarce care and technological innovation in the United Kingdom. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:1485-94.
25. Mair FS, May C, Finch T, et al. Understanding the implementation and integration of e-health services. J Telemed Telecare 2007;13(Suppl 1):36.
26. Greenhalgh T, Potts HWW, Wong G, et al. Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method. Milbank Q 2009;87:729-88.
27. Greenhalgh T, Stramer K, Bratan T, et al. The devil's in the detail: final report of the independent evaluation of the Summary Care Record and HealthSpace programmes. 2010.
28. Ludwick D, Doucette J. Adopting electronic medical records in primary care: lessons learned from health information systems implementation experience in seven countries. Med Inf (Lond) 2009;78:22-31.
29. McGowan J, Grad R, Pluye P, et al. Electronic retrieval of health information by healthcare providers to improve practice and patient care. Cochrane Library: Edited (no change to conclusions), published in. 2009; 3.
30. Robertson A, Cresswell K, Takian A, et al. Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: qualitative analysis of interim results from a prospective national evaluation. BMJ 2010;341: c4564.
31. Dobrev A, Jones T, Stroetmann V, et al. Interoperable eHealth is Worth it: securing benefits from electronic health records and eprescribing. European Commission, 2010.
32. Dobrev A, Jones T, Kersting A, et al. Methodology for evaluating the socio-economic impact of interoperable EHR and ePrescribing systems. Bonn: European Commission, 2008.
33. Car J, Black A, Anandan C, et al. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of healthcare: a systematic overview and synthesis of the literature. Report for the NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme. 2008.
34. Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, et al. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Medicine 2011;8:e1000387.
35. Greenhalgh T, Hinder S, Stramer K, et al. Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: case study of HealthSpace. BMJ 2010;341:c5814.
36. Smalley L. Patients' experience of pharmacist-led supplementary prescribing in primary care. PJ 2006;276:567-9.
37. Latter S, Maben J, Myall M, et al. An evaluation of extended formulary independent nurse prescribing: executive summary of final report: University of Southampton. 2005. http://www.nursingandmidwifery.soton.ac.uk/research/docs.EFINPExecutiveSummary240605.pdf (accessed Apr 11).
38. George J, McCaig DJ, Bond CM, et al. Supplementary prescribing: early experiences of pharmacists in Great Britain. Ann Pharmacother 2006;40:1843.
39. Tonna A, Stewart D, West B, et al. Pharmacist prescribing in the UK-a literature review of current practice and research. J Clin Phar Ther 2007;32:545-56.
40. Blenkinsopp A, Tann J, Evans A, et al. Opportunity or threat? General practitioner perceptions of pharmacist prescribing. IJPP 2008;16:29-34.
41. Stewart DC, George J, Bond CM, et al. Exploring patients' perspectives of pharmacist supplementary prescribing in Scotland. Pharm World Sci 2008;30:892-7.
42. Stewart DC, George J, Bond CM, et al. Views of pharmacist prescribers, doctors and patients on pharmacist prescribing implementation. IJPP 2009;17:89-94.
43. Stewart D, MacLure K, Bond C, et al. Pharmacist prescribing in primary care: the views of nominated patients across Great Britain who had experienced the service. IJPP 2010;18:15-16.
44. Hobson RJ, Scott J, Sutton J. Pharmacists and nurses as independent prescribers: exploring the patient's perspective. Fam Prac 2010;27:110.
45. Royal Pharmaceutical Society & Royal College of General Practitioners. Joint Statement: Breaking down the barriers-how community pharmacists and GPs can work together to improve patient care. London: RPS & RCGP, 2011.
46. Centre for Review and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: CRD, 2009.
47. Greenhalgh T. New methodologies for Systematic Review-a lecture given to the Cochrane Collaboration. 2008.
48. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
49. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Public Health resources unit. [homepage on the Internet]. Oxford: CASP, 2011. http://www.sph.nhs.uk/what-we-do/ public-health-workforce/resources/critical-appraisals-skills-programme (accessed Feb 2011).
50. Boynton PM, Greenhalgh T. Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire. BMJ 2004;328:1312.
51. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000;320:50.
52. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine 2009;6:e1000097.
53. Eysenbach G. What is e-health? J Med Internet Research 2001;3:e20.
54. Oh H, Rizo C, Enkin M, et al. What is eHealth (3): a systematic review of published definitions. J Med Internet Research 2005;7:e1.
55. Chronaki C, Kontoyiannis V, Mytaras M, et al. Evaluation of shared EHR services in primary healthcare centers and their rural community offices: the twister story. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2007;2007:6422-5.
56. Ahmad F, Skinner HA, Stewart DE, et al. Perspectives of family physicians on computer-assisted health-risk assessments. J Med Internet Res 2010;12:e12.
57. Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Med Inf (Lond) 2010;79:736-71.
58. Richards H, King G, Reid M, et al. Remote working: survey of attitudes to eHealth of doctors and nurses in rural general practices in the United Kingdom. Fam Prac 2005;22:2-7.
59. Pagliari C, Donnan P, Morrison J, et al. Adoption and perception of electronic clinical communications in Scotland. Inform Prim Care 2005;13:97-104.
60. Granlien MF, Simonsen J. Challenges for IT-supported shared care: a qualitative analyses of two shared care initiatives for diabetes treatment in Denmark. Int J of Integrated Care 2007;7:1-13.
61. Melby L, Hellesø R. Electronic exchange of discharge summaries between hospital and municipal care from health personnel's perspectives. Int J of Integrated Care 2010;10:1-9.
62. Greenhalgh T, Stramer K, Bratan T, et al. Adoption and non-adoption of a shared electronic summary record in England: a mixed-method case study. BMJ 2010;340: c3111.
63. The GRADE working group. GRADE working group. [homepage on the Internet]. http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/index.htm (accessed Nov 2011).
64. Ahmad F, Skinner HA, Stewart DE, et al. Perspectives of Family Physicians on Computer-assisted Health-risk Assessments. J Med Internet Res 2010; 12:5-5.
65. Chain of Trust. Project aiming to assess the perspectives of the main end users of telehealth services, i.e. patients, doctors, nurses and pharmacists across the EU. [homepage on the Internet]. http://www.chainoftrust.eu (accessed Jun 2011).
66. Scottish Government. Better eHealth: Better Care-Citizen eHealth Survey. [homepage on the Internet]. http://www.ehealth.scot.nhs.uk/?page_id=143 (accessed Nov 2011).
67. Sheikh A, Cornford T, Barber N, et al. Research: implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: final qualitative results from prospective national evaluation in "early adopter" hospitals. BMJ 2011;343:343.
68. Audit Scotland. A review of telehealth in Scotland. Edinburgh: Audit Scotland, 2010.
69. Kaplan B, Harris-Salamone KD. Health IT success and failure: recommendations from literature and an AMIA workshop. J AMIA 2009;16:291-9.
70. Greenhalgh T, Russell J. Why do evaluations of eHealth programs fail? An alternative set of guiding principles. PLoS Medicine 2010;7:e1000360.
71. Checkland P, Poulter J. Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use, for practitioners, teachers and students. Chichester: Wiley, 2006.
72. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. Glencoe: Free Press, 1995.
73. Greenhalgh T. Developing theory and method for studying resistance to big IT programmes in healthcare. An NIHR HS&DR project 10/1011/01. In progress. http://www.netscc.ac.uk/hsdr/projdetails.php?ref=10-1011-01 (accessed May 2013).
74. Royal College of General Practitioners. Integration of care consultation paper. London: RCGP, 2011.
75. Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Empowering pharmacists to improve Pharmaceutical Care and Medicines Safety through Information Technology: Information Technology Strategic Principles. online: 2011.
76. Scottish Government. Achieving sustainable quality in Scotland's healthcare: A '20:20' Vision. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2011.
77. Scottish Government. Role of pharmacists to be reviewed. [homepage on the Internet]. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/10/17101158 (accessed Oct 2011).
78. The Christie Commission. Report on the future delivery of public services. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2011.
79. Wilson H, Barber N. Review of NHS Pharmaceutical Care of Patients in the Community in Scotland, 2013. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00430209.pdf (accessed 15 Aug 2013).
80. Research Councils UK. Excellence with Impact: What do Research Councils mean by 'impact'?. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/kei/impacts/Pages/meanbyimpact.aspx (accessed Jun 2013).