4.1 Article

Evaluation of Electronic Health Record Implementation in Hospitals

Journal

CIN-COMPUTERS INFORMATICS NURSING
Volume 35, Issue 7, Pages 364-372

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CIN.0000000000000328

Keywords

Electronic health records; Evaluation; Implementation; Nurses; Perspective

Funding

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at Al al-Bayt University [4/2014/2015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effectiveness of electronic health records has not previously been widely evaluated. Thus, this national cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate electronic health records, from the perspective of nurses, by examining how they use the records, their opinions on the quality of the systems, and their overall levels of satisfaction with electronic health records. The relationship between these constructs was measured, and its predictors were investigated. A random sample of Jordanian hospitals that used electronic health records was selected, and data were gathered using a self-administered questionnaire, based on the DeLone and McLean Information Systems Success model. In total, 1648 nurses from 17 different hospitals participated in the study. Results indicated that nurses were largely positive about the use and quality of the systems and were satisfied with electronic health records. Significant positive correlations were found between these constructs, and a number of demographical and situational factors were found to have an effect on nurses' perceptions. The study provides a systematic evaluation of different facets of electronic health records, which is fundamental for recognizing the motives and challenges for success and for further enhancing this success. The work proves that nurses favor the use of electronic health records and are satisfied with it and perceive its high quality, and the findings should therefore encourage their ongoing implementation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available