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
. 2011 Oct 17:343:d6054.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6054.

Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: final qualitative results from prospective national evaluation in "early adopter" hospitals

Affiliations

Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: final qualitative results from prospective national evaluation in "early adopter" hospitals

Aziz Sheikh et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the implementation and adoption of the NHS detailed care records service in "early adopter" hospitals in England.

Design: Theoretically informed, longitudinal qualitative evaluation based on case studies.

Setting: 12 "early adopter" NHS acute hospitals and specialist care settings studied over two and a half years.

Data sources: Data were collected through in depth interviews, observations, and relevant documents relating directly to case study sites and to wider national developments that were perceived to impact on the implementation strategy. Data were thematically analysed, initially within and then across cases. The dataset consisted of 431 semistructured interviews with key stakeholders, including hospital staff, developers, and governmental stakeholders; 590 hours of observations of strategic meetings and use of the software in context; 334 sets of notes from observations, researchers' field notes, and notes from national conferences; 809 NHS documents; and 58 regional and national documents.

Results: Implementation has proceeded more slowly, with a narrower scope and substantially less clinical functionality than was originally planned. The national strategy had considerable local consequences (summarised under five key themes), and wider national developments impacted heavily on implementation and adoption. More specifically, delays related to unrealistic expectations about the capabilities of systems; the time needed to build, configure, and customise the software; the work needed to ensure that systems were supporting provision of care; and the needs of end users for training and support. Other factors hampering progress included the changing milieu of NHS policy and priorities; repeatedly renegotiated national contracts; different stages of development of diverse NHS care records service systems; and a complex communication process between different stakeholders, along with contractual arrangements that largely excluded NHS providers. There was early evidence that deploying systems resulted in important learning within and between organisations and the development of relevant competencies within NHS hospitals.

Conclusions: Implementation of the NHS Care Records Service in "early adopter" sites proved time consuming and challenging, with as yet limited discernible benefits for clinicians and no clear advantages for patients. Although our results might not be directly transferable to later adopting sites because the functionalities we evaluated were new and untried in the English context, they shed light on the processes involved in implementing major new systems. The move to increased local decision making that we advocated based on our interim analysis has been pursued and welcomed by the NHS, but it is important that policymakers do not lose sight of the overall goal of an integrated interoperable solution.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: all authors have support in the form of a grant from the NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Comment in

References

    1. Black A, Car J, Pagliari C, Anandan C, Cresswell K. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med 2011;8:e1000387. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Department of Health. Information for health: an information strategy for the modern NHS. DH, 1998. www.dh.gov.uk/en/PublicationsAndStatistics/LettersAndCirculars/HealthSer....
    1. Department of Health. The NHS plan: a plan for investment, a plan for reform. DH, 2000.
    1. Department of Health. Building the information core: implementing the NHS plan. DH, 2001.
    1. Department of Health. Delivering the NHS plan: next steps on investment, next steps on reform. DH, 2002.

Publication types

MeSH terms