Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · ACI open 2018; 02(01): e30-e40
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1660464
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Physicians' Estimates of Electronic Prescribing's Impact on Patient Safety and Quality of Care

Eija Kivekäs
1   Department of Health and Social Management, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
,
Santtu Mikkonen
2   Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
,
Elizabeth Borycki
3   School of Health Information Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
,
Sami Ihantola
4   Information Technology and Services, Tieto Ltd., Kuopio, Finland
,
Kaija Saranto
1   Department of Health and Social Management, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

08 April 2018

06 May 2018

Publication Date:
08 June 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) is a potentially important intervention that can be used to reduce errors. It provides many potential benefits over handwritten medication prescriptions, including standardization, legibility, audit trails, and decision support. Electronic health record (EHR) and e-prescribing systems may greatly enhance communication and improve the quality and safety of care.

Objectives Our aim is to investigate physician's opinions about the influence of electronic prescriptions on patient safety and quality of care.

Methods This study extends the technology acceptance model to analyze the acceptance of e-prescribing and adds an understanding of what kind of impact the external variables (patient identification and the interoperability of applications) have on physicians' individual work performance (i.e., patient safety and quality of care). The empirical analysis uses data from surveys conducted in 2012 and 2014 in Finland. The participants were physicians, and e-prescribing was the only method that could be used for prescribing medication when these studies were conducted.

Results Physicians' perceived usefulness of e-prescribing was significantly associated with patient safety and quality of care. The interoperability of an EHR had a significant effect on both the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of e-prescribing. The findings show that experience with an e-prescribing system has a positive effect on participants' perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of e-prescribing.

Conclusion This study highlights potential safety and efficiency benefits associated with integrated health information technology in health care. The perceived usefulness of e-prescribing affected physicians' opinions on patient safety and quality of care.

Keywords

safety - quality - electronic prescribing - technology acceptance model

Clinical Relevance Statement

• The PU of an e-prescribing system was significantly associated with PSQ.


• The interoperability of an EHR and patient identification had a direct association with e-prescribing's PEoU.


• This study highlights the importance of attitudinal factors and cognitive instrumental processes where the medical professionals' adoption and utilization of health information systems with technology acceptance is concerned. Newly qualified physicians may use the information systems without prejudice.


Protection of Human and Animals Subjects

This study did not collect patient data. The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, and the study received approval from the University of Eastern Finland Committee on Research Ethics (Statement 12/2012).


 

  • References

  • 1 Esmaeil Zadeh P, Tremblay MC. A review of the literature and proposed classification on e-prescribing: Functions, assimilation stages, benefits, concerns, and risks. Res Social Adm Pharm 2016; 12 (01) 1-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cresswell KM, Bates DW, Williams R. , et al. Evaluation of medium-term consequences of implementing commercial computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support prescribing systems in two “early adopter” hospitals. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21 (e2): e194-e202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Elliott RA, Lee CY, Hussainy SY. Electronic prescribing and medication management at a residential aged care facility: uptake by general practitioners and qualitative evaluation of the benefits and barriers. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (01) 116-127
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Øvretveit J, Scott T, Rundall TG, Shortell SM, Brommels M. Improving quality through effective implementation of information technology in healthcare. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19 (05) 259-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ferrante S, Bonacina S, Pozzi G, Pinciroli F, Marceglia S. A design methodology for medical processes. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (01) 191-210
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bates DW, Gawande AA. Improving safety with information technology. N Engl J Med 2003; 348 (25) 2526-2534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Maillet É, Mathieu L, Sicotte C. Modeling factors explaining the acceptance, actual use and satisfaction of nurses using an Electronic Patient Record in acute care settings: an extension of the UTAUT. Int J Med Inform 2015; 84 (01) 36-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kaipio J, Lääveri T, Hyppönen H. , et al. Usability problems do not heal by themselves: National survey on physicians' experiences with EHRs in Finland. Int J Med Inform 2017; 97: 266-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Baysari MT, Hardie RA, Lake R. , et al. Longitudinal study of user experiences of a CPOE system in a pediatric hospital. Int J Med Inform 2018; 109: 5-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991; 50: 179-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform 2010; 43 (01) 159-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989; 13 (03) 319-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Liu C, Cheng T. Exploring critical factors influencing physicians' acceptance of mobile electonic medical records based on the dual-factor model: a validation in Taiwan. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2015; 15: 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dünnebeil S, Sunyaev A, Blohm I, Leimeister JM, Krcmar H. Determinants of physicians' technology acceptance for e-health in ambulatory care. Int J Med Inform 2012; 81 (11) 746-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Steininger K, Stiglbauer B. EHR acceptance among Austrian resident doctors. Health Policy Technol 2015; 4: 121-130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Walter Z, Lopez MS. Physician acceptance of information technologies: Role of perceived threat to professional autonomy. Decis Support Syst 2008; 46: 206-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ortega Egea JM, Román González MV. Explaining physicians' acceptance of EHCR systems: An extension of TAM with trust and risk factors. Comput Human Behav 2011; 27: 319-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Abdekhoda M, Ahmadi M, Dehnad A, Noruzi A, Gohari M. Applying electronic medical records in health care: physicians' perspective. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (02) 341-354
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Escobar-Rodrigues PM, Romero-Alonso M. Acceptance of E-prescriptions and automated medication-management systems in hospitals: an extension of the technology acceptance model. J Inf Syst 2012; 26: 77-96
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rho MJ, Choi IY, Lee J. Predictive factors of telemedicine service acceptance and behavioral intention of physicians. Int J Med Inform 2014; 83 (08) 559-571
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sun Y, Bhattacherjee A, Ma Q. Extending technology usage to work settings: The role of perceived work compatibility in ERP implementation. Inf Manage 2009; 46 (06) 351-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Davis K, Doty MM, Shea K, Stremikis K. Health information technology and physician perceptions of quality of care and satisfaction. Health Policy 2009; 90 (2–3): 239-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hellström L, Waern K, Montelius E, Åstrand B, Rydberg T, Petersson G. Physicians' attitudes towards ePrescribing--evaluation of a Swedish full-scale implementation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2009; 9 (37) 37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 McLean S, Sheikh A, Cresswell K. , et al. The impact of telehealthcare on the quality and safety of care: a systematic overview. PLoS One 2013; 8 (08) e71238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 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 (01) 231-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Machan C, Siebert U. The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15 (05) 585-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Davies J, Pucher PH, Ibrahim H, Stubbs B. Impact of the introduction of electronic prescribing on staff perceptions of patient safety and organizational culture. J Surg Res 2017; 212: 222-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kanta. Electronic prescription. 2018. Available at: http://www.kanta.fi/en/web/ammattilaisille
    PubMed
  • 30 Reponen J, Kangas M, Hämäläinen P, Keränen N. Use of Information and Communications Technology in Finnish Health Care in 2014. Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare THL; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 31 HIMSS Board of Directors. Definition of Interoperability. 2013. Available at: http://www.himss.org/library/interoperability-standards/what-is-interoperability . Accessed May 13, 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kuo MH, Kushniruk AW, Borycki EM. A comparison of national health data interoperability approaches in Taiwan, Denmark and Canada. Electr Healthc 2011; 10 (02) 18-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C. , et al. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med 2011; 8 (01) e1000387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kivekäs E, Enlund H, Borycki E, Saranto K. General practitioners' attitudes towards electronic prescribing and the use of the national prescription centre. J Eval Clin Pract 2016; 22 (05) 816-825
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Yarbrough AK, Smith TB. Technology acceptance among physicians: a new take on TAM. Med Care Res Rev 2007; 64 (06) 650-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Sicotte C, Taylor L, Tamblyn R. Predicting the use of electronic prescribing among early adopters in primary care. Can Fam Physician 2013; 59 (07) e312-e321
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Gagnon MP, Ghandour K, Talla PK. , et al. Electronic health record acceptance by physicians: testing an integrated theoretical model. J Biomed Inform 2014; 48: 17-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Islam A, Azad N, Mäntymäki M, Islam S. TAM and E-learning Adoption: A Philosophical Scrutiny of TAM, Its Limitations, and Prescriptions for E-learning Adoption Research. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Rogers R, Peres Y, Müller W. Living longer independently – a healthcare interoperability perspective. Elektrotech Inform 2010; 127 (7–8): 206-211
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Motulsky A, Lamothe L, Sicotte C. Impacts of second-generation electronic prescriptions on the medication management process in primary care: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform 2013; 82 (06) 473-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hyppönen H, Hännikäinen K, Pajukoski M, Ruotsalainen P, Salmivalli L, Tenhunen E. Evaluation of the National Electronic Prescribing Pilot II (2005–2006). STAKES, Reports 11/2006. Helsinki, 2006
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R. Multivariate Data Analysis. A Global Perspective. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Ministery of Social Affairs and Health. Information to Support Well-Being and Service Renewal. e-Health and e-Social Strategy 2020. Helsinki: Edita Prima; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Saeed KA, Abdinnour-Helm S. Examining the effects of information system characteristics and perceived usefulness on post adoption usage of inormation systems. Inf Manage 2008; 45: 376-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Gururajan R. Organizational factors and technological barriers as determinants for the intention to use wireless handheld technology in healthcare environment: an Indian case study. In: Khoumbati K, Kumar Dwivedi Y, Srivastava A, Lal B. , eds. Handbook of Research on Advances in Health Informatics and Electronic Healthcare Applications. Global Adoption and Impact of Information communication Technologies. Hershey, PA: Medical Information Science Reference; 2010: 109-123
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Miller GA, Chapman JP. Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. J Abnorm Psychol 2001; 110 (01) 40-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar