4.4 Article

Evaluating the epic electronic medical record system: A dichotomy in perspectives and solution recommendations

Journal

HEALTH POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 65-73

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2015.10.004

Keywords

Electronic medical record (EMR); Epic; UVa; Usability; Patient safety; Cost of healthcare

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems have become an integral part of patient care, in both inpatient and outpatient settings. The objective of this paper is to propose a set of recommendations on how the Epic EMR system can be used to improve patient care. To this end, we present findings on the use of the Epic EMR system in the University of Virginia (UVa)'s Health System. Target audience: Healthcare organizations implementing electronic medical record systems and health technology managers. Methods: Face-to-face interviews with 30 of UVa's hospital personnel and others in the Epic department at UVa. Results and conclusions: Three key areas are discussed to determine the feasibility of improvement including a decrease in medical errors and the resulting parallel improvement in patient safety, inter-disciplinary collaboration, and a decrease in the overall cost of healthcare. We identified many discrepancies between the Epic EMR system's intended use, and the workaround system that clinicians have used to document patient care. In addition, we discuss a dichotomy in perspectives amongst the Health System and Technology Services department at UVa, and healthcare staff end users, with regard to the intended functionality and the usability of the Epic EMR system. In light of our findings, we provide a set of recommendations on how to decrease the gap between the intended and actual use of EMR systems, in general (C) 2015 Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available