Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2010 Sep 1:341:c4564.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4564.

Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: qualitative analysis of interim results from a prospective national evaluation

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: qualitative analysis of interim results from a prospective national evaluation

Ann Robertson et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objectives: To describe and evaluate the implementation and adoption of detailed electronic health records in secondary care in England and thereby provide early feedback for the ongoing local and national rollout of the NHS Care Records Service.

Design: A mixed methods, longitudinal, multisite, socio-technical case study.

Setting: Five NHS acute hospital and mental health trusts that have been the focus of early implementation efforts and at which interim data collection and analysis are complete. Data sources and analysis Dataset for the evaluation consists of semi-structured interviews, documents and field notes, observations, and quantitative data. Qualitative data were analysed thematically with a socio-technical coding matrix, combined with additional themes that emerged from the data. Main results Hospital electronic health record applications are being developed and implemented far more slowly than was originally envisioned; the top-down, standardised approach has needed to evolve to admit more variation and greater local choice, which hospital trusts want in order to support local activity. Despite considerable delays and frustrations, support for electronic health records remains strong, including from NHS clinicians. Political and financial factors are now perceived to threaten nationwide implementation of electronic health records. Interviewees identified a range of consequences of long term, centrally negotiated contracts to deliver the NHS Care Records Service in secondary care, particularly as NHS trusts themselves are not party to these contracts. These include convoluted communication channels between different stakeholders, unrealistic deployment timelines, delays, and applications that could not quickly respond to changing national and local NHS priorities. Our data suggest support for a "middle-out" approach to implementing hospital electronic health records, combining government direction with increased local autonomy, and for restricting detailed electronic health record sharing to local health communities.

Conclusions: Experiences from the early implementation sites, which have received considerable attention, financial investment and support, indicate that delivering improved healthcare through nationwide electronic health records will be a long, complex, and iterative process requiring flexibility and local adaptability both with respect to the systems and the implementation strategy. The more tailored, responsive approach that is emerging is becoming better aligned with NHS organisations' perceived needs and is, if pursued, likely to deliver clinically useful electronic health record systems.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.orge/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare that (1) all authors have support in the form of a grant from the NHS CFHEP for the submitted work; (2) no author has a relationship with any company that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; (3) no author’s spouse, partner, or children have financial relationships that may be relevant to the submitted work; and (4) no author has non-financial interests that may be relevant to the submitted work.

Figures

None
The NHS Care Records Service in secondary care in 2010: local service providers, local service provider suppliers, and NHS Care Records Service applications

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Catwell L, Sheikh A. Evaluating ehealth interventions: the need for continuous systematic evaluation. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000126. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Protti D. Comparison of information technology in general practice in 10 countries. Healthcare Q 2007;10:107-15. - PubMed
    1. Car J, Black A, Anandan C, Cresswell K, Pagliari C, McKinstry B, et al. The impact of ehealth on the quality and safety of healthcare. a systematic overview and synthesis of the literature. 2008. www.haps.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/cfhep/documents/NHS_CFHEP_001_Final_Rep.... - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Donelan K, Rao SR, Ferris TG, et al. Use of electronic health records in US hospitals. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1628-38. - PubMed
    1. National Audit Office. The National Programme for IT in the NHS: progress since 2006. NAO, 2008. www.nao.org.uk/publications/0708/the_national_programme_for_it.aspx.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources