assignment 9- Ethics

32 Saudi Journal for Health Sciences - Vol 4, Issue 1, Jan-Apr 2015

INTRODUCTION

Sophisticated electronic health record (EHR) improves healthcare.[1‑3] Such system may include reduced time consumed on paperwork,[3] improved patient satisfaction,[4] and diminished cost,[5] improved efficiency, and diminished error.[6] Utilization of EHR functionalities by physicians and other clinicians is essential to prove benefits of such system.[6‑10] In other countries, like the US, practices of physicians are slow.[4,5] Recent rates of utilization by physicians increased from 18% in 2001 to 72% in the

preliminary 2012 estimates.[11,12] Reluctance of physicians to use EHR is a big hurdle.[7]

Literature review (1998 to 2013), concerning barriers to utilization of EHRs by physicians was conducted. Eight main categories including financial, technical, time, psychological, social, legal, organizational, and change process were reported. Physicians and nurses have preconceived concerns about security and confidentiality,[6,13‑15] time spent by EHR use,[7] or negative effects on the quality of patient care.[6,13‑15]

The process of EHR adoption should be treated as a change project, and led by implementers or change managers, in medical practices. The quality of change management plays an important role in the success of EHR adoption.[16]

Saudi Arabia (SA) has prioritized the development of eHealth and, along with it, the transition from paper‑based health records to EHRs. The Saudi government adopted the following mission for eHealth: ‘A safe quality healthcare system based on patient centric care guided by standards,

Electronic health records: Use and barriers among physicians in eastern province of Saudi Arabia Azza Ali El Mahalli

Department of Health Information Management and Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences in University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Address for correspondence: Dr. Azza Ali El Mahalli, College of Applied Medical Sciences in University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. E‑mail: [email protected]

Background: Electronic health record (EHR) applications improved quality and diminished health services cost. Aims: Project aimed to determine utilization and barriers of EHR by physicians. Settings: Three governmental hospitals in Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia adopted EHR system with the same software and functionalities. Design: Study was cross-sectional. Materials and Methods: EHR functionalities tool of a previous study was used. Additionally, tool included physicians’ data and barriers of utilizing functionalities. Response scale of using functionalities was ‘used’ or ‘not used’. Questionnaires were distributed among physicians working in departments adopting EHR. Overall response rate was 57.5% (319/555). Results: There was under-utilization of almost all functionalities. The least one was ‘data back-up and disaster recovery’ (18.2%) and the highest was ‘enter pharmacy orders’ (96.2%). There was no use of communication tools with patients as e-mails, facsimile and short messages. Physicians had no access to charts while they are outside hospital. Patients had no access to records. There was under-utilization of D) (27.6%). Most common barriers were system hanging up (86.5%), loss of access to records transiently if computer crashes or power fails (85.6%), fastness in utilizing system (84.3%), and system takes additional time for data entry (83.4%). Lack of continuous training/support from IT staff in the hospital (79.3%), lack of customizability of the system according to users’ needs (78.1%), complexity of technology (74%), disturbing patient-doctor communication (71.2%, P ˂ 0.05), and lack in belief in EHR adoption (63.6%, P ≤ 0.05) were cited. Conclusions: Under-utilization of most of functionalities. Physicians should be encouraged to use it via overcoming the obstacles.

Key words: Barriers, electronic health records, physicians, Saudi Arabia, use

Original Article

A B

ST R

A C

T Background: Electronic health record (EHR) applications improved quality and diminished health services cost. Aims: Project aimed to determine utilization and barriers of EHR by physicians. Settings: Three governmental hospitals in Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia adopted EHR system with the same software and functionalities. Design: Study was cross-sectional. Materials and Methods: EHR functionalities tool of a previous study was used. Additionally, tool included physicians’ data and barriers of utilizing functionalities. Response scale of using functionalities was ‘used’ or ‘not used’. Questionnaires were distributed among physicians working in departments adopting EHR. Overall response rate was 57.5% (319/555). Results: There was under-utilization of almost all functionalities. The least one was ‘data back-up and disaster recovery’ (18.2%) and the highest was ‘enter pharmacy orders’ (96.2%). There was no use of communication tools with patients as e-mails, facsimile and short messages. Physicians had no access to charts while they are outside hospital. Patients had no access to records. There was under-utilization of Automatic International Classification of Diseases (ICD) (27.6%). Most common barriers were system hanging up (86.5%), loss of access to records transiently if computer crashes or power fails (85.6%), fastness in utilizing system (84.3%), and system takes additional time for data entry (83.4%). Lack of continuous training/support from IT staff in the hospital (79.3%), lack of customizability of the system according to users’ needs (78.1%), complexity of technology (74%), disturbing patient-doctor communication (71.2%, P < 0.05), and lack in belief in EHR adoption (63.6%, P ≤ 0.05) were cited. Conclusions: Under-utilization of most of functionalities. Physicians should be encouraged to use it via overcoming the obstacles.

Key words: Barriers, electronic health records, physicians, Saudi Arabia, use

Access this article online

Website:

www.saudijhealthsci.org

Quick Response Code

DOI:

10.4103/2278-0521.151407

[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijhealthsci.org on Monday, March 19, 2018, IP: 84.235.83.65]

Mahalli: Use of electronic health records

Saudi Journal for Health Sciences - Vol 4, Issue 1, Jan-Apr 2015 33

enabled by eHealth’.[17] The Ministry of Health (MOH) allocated 4 billion Saudi riyal ($1.07 billion in US dollars) towards eHealth programmes for the 4‑year period from 2008 to 2011.[18] An eHealth plan has been put together that integrates with the plans of the MOH.

Physicians and barriers affecting such utilization have published studies for adoption of EHR functionalities.[19,20] Results showed under‑utilization and physicians do not benefit from all the services provided by the system.[21]

To date, there have been no definitive national studies in SA that provide reliable estimates of the adoption of different functionalities of the new EHR software version by physicians. This research is a follow‑up research for another one conducted in 2010.[22] Study tool of the previous study was used in this research. However, target population in this project was physicians instead of heads of IT departments. MOH intends to apply this new software for all governmental hospitals. Therefore, measuring its adoption rate and barriers is crucial to decision makers at the central level.

The project aimed to assess utilization and barriers of EHR system by physicians at three governmental hospitals adopting the same EHR software version in Eastern Province, SA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three governmental hospitals adopted a new EHR system in Eastern Province, SA. These are general hospitals affiliate to MOH. Two hospitals have more than 300 beds. Third hospital has 150 beds and lies in a town at the border between SA and Kuwait.

The departments participated in the study were as follows: Surgery/anaesthesia (general, plastic and orthopaedics), medical (internal medicine, nephrology, cardiology, diabetes mellitus and endocrinology, chest diseases, paediatric and neurology and psychiatry), emergency departments (ED) (emergency room and intensive care unit), ancillary services (physiotherapy, laboratory and radiology) and others (dentistry, dermatology, ophthalmology and ear, nose and throat). These were the departments adopting EHR at time of data collection.

Study design was cross‑sectional paper‑based questionnaire study.

Data collection tool was self‑administered paper‑based questionnaire. Response scale for using functionalities was ‘used’ or ‘not used’. The questionnaire was distributed among physicians in February 2012. It collected the following data: I Demographics of physicians (age, gender, nationality,

years in medical practice); work position and department; computer literacy (computer availability at the workplace, ever attending a computer course, self‑ rated computer skills) and duration of EHR practicing

II Different functionalities of the EHR system[22] including: a. Chart review: • Obtain and review lab results • Obtain and review radiology results • Obtain and review other test results • Create and review scanned documents • Review progress notes • Monitor current and past medications and

medication refills. b. Decision support: • Receive drug interaction alerts when writing

prescriptions • Receive drug allergy alerts when writing

prescriptions • Highlight test results that are out of normal range • Clinical guidelines. c. Order entry: • Enter lab orders • Enter radiology orders • Enter pharmacy orders d. Documentation: • Create and maintain patient‑related medical

problem list • Create and maintain common medication list • Identify patient‑specific allergies • Document patient discharge instructions. e. Communication with patients: Email, fax and mobile

phone SMS system f. Additional tool: • Managing patient referrals • Allowing physicians, when out of the hospital, to

use the Internet to access patient health records • Allowing patients to use the Internet to access

parts of their health records • ICD codes • Generating health statistics • Data backup and disaster recovery.

III Barriers of utilization of EHR system: Literature review was used for extracting different barriers [6,7,13,16,20,23‑25] as: • Confidentiality, security and data privacy (e. g., place

of computer) • loss of access to medical records transiently if

computer crashes or power fails • Fastness in utilizing EHR system • Additional time for data entry affect utilizing the EHR

system • Complexity of technology affect utilizing EHR system • Disturbing patient‑doctor communication • Lack of belief in EHRs adoption • Lack of customizability of the system according to

users’ needs • Lack of continuous training/support from information

technology staff in hospital • Lack of drug alert system (e. g., drug interactions,

drug allergy, etc.) • Lack of pregnancy alert system

[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijhealthsci.org on Monday, March 19, 2018, IP: 84.235.83.65]

Mahalli: Use of electronic health records

34 Saudi Journal for Health Sciences - Vol 4, Issue 1, Jan-Apr 2015

• System hanging up problem • Others.

Barriers were determined as yes and no.

All physicians using the EHR system were included. Questionnaires were distributed as follows: • Hospital A: Questionnaires were distributed among

225 participants. However, only 133 participated. The response rate was 59.1%

• Hospital B: Questionnaires were distributed among 250 participants. However, only 144 participated. The response rate was 57.6%

• Hospital C: Questionnaires were distributed among 80 participants. However, only 42 participated. The response rate was 52.5%.

Physicians working at the departments using the EHR system and willing to participate were included.

Formal approval was taken before conducting the research. Confidentiality of the data collected from physicians was considered.

Pilot study was conducted at hospital A. Paper‑based questionnaire was distributed among 20 physicians and 12 ones were recollected (response rate = 60.0%). Two barriers hindering EHR adoption were added titled: System hanging up problem and problem with pregnancy alert system as mentioned by physicians.

Statistical package of social sciences (SPSS) version 20 was used for data entry and analysis. Descriptive statistics was used. Differences between groups were measured using Chi square and Monte Carlo tests. The statistical significance was determined when the P value was ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

Results [see Table 1] revealed that mean age of physicians was (35.4 ± 9.7). They were mostly men (63.3%) and Saudis (52.4%). Difference between hospitals regarding age and nationality was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Mean of medical practice years was X ± SD = 10.5 ± 8.9 and EHR practice years was X ± SD = 2.5 ± 2.0. Regarding computer literacy, most of respondents had a computer at work place (97.2%). The highest percent of respondents had ‘average’ self‑rating of computer skills (72.1%).

There was under‑utilization of almost all functionalities [Table 2 and Figure 1]. ‘Obtain and review lab results’ represented the highest frequency functionality used in chart review (94.4%, P < 0.05). However, ‘Review progress notes’ represented the lowest frequency of utilization (45.1%, P < 0.05). Concerning ‘decision support’, ‘Highlight test results that are out of normal range’ showed the highest frequency of utilization (87.5%, P < 0.05). However,

‘clinical guidelines’ reported the lowest one (50.5%, P < 0.05). For order entry, ‘Enter pharmacy orders’ represented the highest frequency of utilization (96.2%, P < 0.05). On the other hand, ‘Enter lab orders’ was the lowest (86.5%, P < 0.05). With respect to documentation, ‘Create and maintain common medication list’ was the highest functionality utilized (81.2%, P > 0.05). However, ‘Create and maintain patient‑related medical problem list’ was the least functionality utilized (69.6, P < 0.05). There was no utilization of any communication tools with patients [e‑mails, facsimile (fax), and short messages service (SMS)]. For additional tools, ‘Managing patient referrals’ as the highest functionality used (28.8, P < 0.05) [Figure 1]. However, there was no utilization of ‘Allowing physicians, when out of the hospital, to use the internet to access patient health records’ nor ‘Allowing patients to use the internet to access parts of their health records’ functionalities.

Difference between work positions of physicians (intern/resident, specialist and consultant) [Table 3] was significant for utilization of obtain and review lab results. Consultant represented the highest utilization (98.5%), followed by intern/resident (96.3%). For enter lab orders, intern/resident represented the highest utilization (91.9%), then consultant (89.6%). Additionally for enter pharmacy orders; consultant represented the highest utilization (100%), followed by intern/resident (98.1%). Differences between departments were statistically significant for adopting most of functionalities. Physicians practicing EHR > 0 years were the highest users of ‘Receive drug interaction alerts when prescribing’ functionality (100%, P < 0.05). Physicians practiced medicine >20 years were highest users of ‘Receive drug allergy alerts’ when prescribing (95.3%, P < 0.05).

The most frequently cited barriers among all hospitals [Table 4] were ‘system hanging up problem’ (86.5%), followed by ‘loss of access to medical records transiently if computer crashes or power fails’ (85.6%), then ‘fastness in utilizing EHR system, i. e., minimal wait between screens, minimal boot‑up time, etc.’ (84.3%). ‘Lack of belief in EHRs adoption’ was the least reported barrier (63.6%, P < 0.05). On the other hand, ‘disturbing patient‑doctor communication’ representing (71.2%, P < 0.05) [Figure 2].

Figure 1: Extent of utilization of electronic health record (EHR) functionalities at governmental hospitals in Eastern Province, SA (2012)

[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijhealthsci.org on Monday, March 19, 2018, IP: 84.235.83.65]

Mahalli: Use of electronic health records

Saudi Journal for Health Sciences - Vol 4, Issue 1, Jan-Apr 2015 35

DISCUSSION

EHR practices have many benefits such as improvements in storage and retrieval of patient information as well as improving quality of services offered to patient and reducing errors. However, only few of EHR system functionalities are used due to some potential barriers preventing their fully utilization. Therefore, the delivery of healthcare services

could be enhanced if advanced functionalities of the software are consistently and effectively adopted.[23]

Results of the present study demonstrated low adoption of most chart review functionalities. This goes hand in hand with a frequently cited barrier in this study; system hanging up problem (86.5%) and/or additional time for data entry affects utilizing the EHR system in all hospitals (83.4%).

Table 1: Profile of physicians at governmental hospitals adopting electronic health record in Eastern Province, SA Profile Hospital A

(#133) Hospital B 

(#144) Hospital C 

(#42) Total Chi‑Square P

No % No % No % No % Age X±SD=35.4±9.7 16.7 0.002*

<30 59 44.4 68 47.2 7 16.7 134 42.0 30-45 54 40.6 53 36.8 20 47.6 127 39.8 >45 20 15.0 23 16.0 15 35.7 58 18.2

Gender Men 80 60.2 90 62.5 32 76.2 202 63.3 3.61 0.164 Women 53 39.8 54 37.5 10 23.8 117 36.7

Nationality Saudi 78 58.6 85 59.0 4 9.5 167 52.4 35.6 0.000* Non-Saudi 55 41.4 59 41.0 38 90.5 152 47.6

Work position Intern/resident 66 49.6 84 58.3 17 40.5 167 52.4 7.56 0.109 Specialist 42 31.6 29 20.1 13 31.0 84 26.3 Consultant 25 18.8 31 21.5 12 28.6 68 21.3

Years of medical practice X±SD=10.5±8.9 <10 83 62.4 95 66.0 12 28.6 190 59.6 21.1 0.000* 10-20 34 25.6 31 21.5 17 40.5 82 25.7 >20 16 12.0 18 12.5 13 31.0 47 14.7

Department Surgery 32 24.1 45 31.3 3 7.1 80 25.1 37.01 0.000* Medical 50 37.6 65 45.1 10 23.8 125 39.2 ED 10 7.5 8 5.6 4 9.5 22 6.9 Ancillary services 12 9.0 12 8.3 5 11.9 29 9.1 Others 29 21.8 14 9.7 20 47.6 63 19.7

Duration of practicing EHR X±SD=2.5±2.0 <5 127 95.5 138 95.8 37 88.1 302 94.7 9.7

Monte Carlo test 0.04*

5-10 3 2.3 5 3.5 5 11.9 13 4.1 >10 3 2.3 1 0.7 0 0.0 4 1.2

Computer literacy Availability of computer at workplace

Yes 129 97.0 141 97.9 40 95.2 310 97.2 0.88 Monte Carlo test

0.64

No 4 3.0 3 2.1 2 4.8 9 2.8 Ever attending computer course

Yes 58 43.6 67 46.5 14 33.3 139 43.6 2.3 0.316 No 75 56.4 77 53.3 28 66.7 180 56.4

Self-rating of computer skills Lowest 12 9.0 5 3.5 2 4.8 19 6.0 7.69 0.103 Average 86 64.7 113 78.5 31 73.8 230 72.1 Highest 35 26.3 26 18.1 9 21.4 70 21.9

*P= ≤0.05. SD: standard deviation, EHR: Electronic health record, ED: Emergency departments

[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijhealthsci.org on Monday, March 19, 2018, IP: 84.235.83.65]

Mahalli: Use of electronic health records

36 Saudi Journal for Health Sciences - Vol 4, Issue 1, Jan-Apr 2015

E‑prescribing is substantial to improve the quality of patient care, diminish medication errors and build awareness to improving patient safety.[26] The present study showed relatively low utilization of monitor current and past medications and medication refills (87.5%). The difference between hospitals was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Among the most serious healthcare problems are medication errors and adverse drug reactions. EHR adoption can reduce this error as the system checks the medication against all the other medications in the patient’s chart and also against patient’s allergies.[27] The present study revealed low adoption rate of receive drug interaction alerts when writing prescriptions (81.8%) and receive drug allergy alerts when writing prescriptions (82.8%). This goes parallel

with a frequently cited barrier; problem with drug alert system (58.9%). With respect to order entry functionality, results showed that utilization rate of lab order entry was 86.5% (P < 0.05). For radiology order entry, utilization was 93.4%. Utilization of pharmacy order entry was 96.2% (P < 0.05). This was higher than findings of a study conducted in India where adoption rate of pharmacy order entry was 78%, and radiology order entry was 75%.[28]

EHR system has many communication tools that enable exchange of information between physicians and between them and patients.[23,29] E‑mail tool is the commonest communication tool used for exchange of information[29] by physicians (88.6%).[6] Fax tool is used for transforming the important forms in and/or outside the hospital, and SMS tool is used to remind patients of their appointments.[29]

Table 2: Extent of utilization of electronic health record functionalities at governmental hospitals in Eastern Province, SA EHR Utilization Hospital A 

(#133) Hospital B 

(#144) Hospital C 

(#42) Total Chi‑square P

No % No % No % No % Chart review

Obtain and review lab results 121 91.0 140 97.2 40 95.2 301 94.4 7.61 0.022* Obtain and review radiology results 122 91.7 130 90.3 41 97.6 293 91.8 1.73 0.421 Obtain and review other test results 108 81.2 129 89.6 39 92.9 276 86.5 5.24 0.073 Create and review scanned documents 82 61.7 76 52.8 30 71.4 188 58.9 5.87 0.053 Review progress notes 41 30.8 64 44.4 39 92.9 144 45.1 46.7 0.000* Monitor current and past medications and medication refills 119 89.5 119 82.6 41 97.6 279 87.5 6.63 0.036*

Decision support Receive drug interaction alerts when writing prescriptions 119 89.5 101 70.1 41 97.6 261 81.8 21.6 0.000* Receive drug allergy alerts when writing prescriptions 116 87.2 109 75.7 39 92.9 264 82.8 8.83 0.012* Highlight test results that are out of normal range 117 88.0 123 85.4 39 92.9 279 87.5 1.63 0.441 Clinical guidelines 62 46.6 66 45.8 33 78.6 161 50.5 13.16 0.001*

Order entry Enter lab orders 105 78.9 134 93.1 37 88.1 276 86.5 12.08 0.002* Enter radiology orders 126 94.7 135 93.8 37 88.1 298 93.4 1.44 0.485 Enter pharmacy orders 130 97.7 140 97.2 37 88.1 307 96.2 7.38 0.025*

Documentation Create and maintain patient-related medical problem list 101 75.9 84 58.3 37 88.1 222 69.6 17.13 0.000* Create and maintain common medication list 113 85.0 110 76.4 36 85.7 259 81.2 3.44 0.179 Identify patient‑specific allergies 103 77.4 100 69.4 36 85.7 239 74.9 4.715 0.095 Document patient discharge instructions 114 85.7 99 68.8 37 88.1 250 78.4 12.94 0.002*

Communication tools with patients E-mail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No statistics Fax 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No statistics Mobile phone SMS system 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No statistics

Additional tools Managing patient referrals 16 12.0 40 27.8 36 85.7 92 28.8 75.33 0.000* Allowing physicians, when out of the hospital, to use the internet to access patient health records

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No statistics

Allowing patients to use the Internet to access parts of their health records

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No statistics

ICD codes 37 27.8 29 20.1 22 52.4 88 27.6 15.51 0.000* Generating health statistics 16 12.0 18 12.5 33 78.6 67 21.0 84.59 0.000* Data back-up and disaster recovery 16 12.0 15 10.4 27 64.3 58 18.2 46.46 0.000*

*P= ≤0.05. SD: Standard deviation, ICD: Implantable cardioverter‑defibrillator

[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijhealthsci.org on Monday, March 19, 2018, IP: 84.235.83.65]

Mahalli: Use of electronic health records

Saudi Journal for Health Sciences - Vol 4, Issue 1, Jan-Apr 2015 37

Table 3: Utilization of electronic health record functionalities by demographics and computer literacy of physicians at  governmental hospitals in Eastern Province, SA Profile Obtain

and review  lab results

Create and review 

scanned documents

Review  progress 

notes

Monitor current and past 

medications and medication refills

Receive drug  interaction alerts when prescribing

Receive  drug allergy alerts when prescribing

Clinical guidelines

Age <30 94.5 60.3 37.8 86.6 76.4 78.9 47.2 30-45 94.4 60.8 52.5 86.8 81.6 81.3 53.7 >45 96.5 51.7 47.4 88.7 94.3* 94.3* 50.0

Gender Men 96.4 57.8 46.4 88.0 80.9 82.8 50.0 Women 92.1 60.9 43.4 85.3 83.3 82.4 51.0

Nationality Saudi 93.8 58.3 36.8 85.5 77.7 75.7 46.2 Non-Saudi 96.0 59.6 54.4* 88.7 85.9 90.0* 54.4

Work position Intern/resident 96.3 63.4 42.2 86.3 81.6 82.2 48.1 Specialist 89.0 55.4 53.9 85.5 77.9 79.1 59.5 Consultant 98.5* 52.2 43.1 90.6 85.9 87.5 44.3

Years of medical practice <10 96.2 59.4 39.2 87.2 77.8 78.9 48.4 10-20 91.4 62.5 62.2* 85.9 85.9 84.3 50.7 >20 95.7 51.1 42.6 88.4 90.7 95.3* 56.8

Department Surgery 96.3 50.0 50.6 77.2 85.9 83.3 61.5 Medical 97.6* 72.0* 33.6 95.2* 75.2 82.4 44.4 ED 81.8 45.5 50.0 68.2 86.4 68.2 36.4 Ancillary services 81.0 44.8 64.3* 83.3 33.3 100.0 44.8 Others 96.8 55.0 56.5 90.3 90.3* 86.7 51.7

Duration of practicing EHR <5 94.6 58.6 45.3 86.9 82.4 82.2 50.2 5-10 100.0 53.8 45.5 100.0 50.0 87.5 61.5 >10 100.0 100.0 50.0 75.0 100.0* 100.0 25.0

Computer literacy Availability of computer at workplace

Yes 95.0 59.0 44.4 87.4 81.5 82.1 49.8 No 88.9 55.6 77.8* 77.8 88.9 100.0 66.7

Ever attending computer course Yes 95.5 58.0 48.5 86.6 82.3 84.6 47.1 No 94.3 59.7 43.0 87.4 81.3 81.2 53.1

Self-rating of computer skills Lowest 100.0 68.4 52.9 94.1 100.0 100.0 52.9 Average 95.5 58.4 43.9 86.9 81.0 82.9 49.2 Highest 91.2 58.0 48.4 85.7 79.0 77.0 53.6

Profile Enter  lab

orders

Enter  pharmacy 

orders

Create and maintain patient‑related 

medical problem list

Document Pt discharge instructions

Managing patient 

referrals

ICD coding

Generating health

statistics

Data backup  and disaster recovery

Age <30 88.9 96.0 65.4 85.8* 22.0 24.7 16.0 13.3 30-45 85.4 96.5 72.2 72.8 30.5 32.2 24.0 19.8 >45 83.6 98.1 71.7 71.7 39.2* 27.1 34.0* 27.5

Gender Men 86.5 97.9 67.3 76.7 33.0* 27.8 25.9 19.4 Women 86.5 94.2 72.4 81.2 19.6 28.8 17.7 16.7

Contd...

[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijhealthsci.org on Monday, March 19, 2018, IP: 84.235.83.65]

Mahalli: Use of electronic health records

38 Saudi Journal for Health Sciences - Vol 4, Issue 1, Jan-Apr 2015

The present study revealed that there was no use of any of these communication tools at all at any hospital. Lack of use of e‑mail could be attributed to lack of access to the

internet in these hospitals. This was parallel to a frequently cited barrier in the present study, disturbing patient‑doctor communication (71.2%, P < 0.05).

Figure 2: Barriers preventing utilization of the electronic health record system at governmental hospitals in Eastern Province, SA (2012)

Table 3: Contd... Profile Enter 

lab orders

Enter  pharmacy 

orders

Create and maintain patient‑related 

medical problem list

Document Pt discharge instructions

Managing patient 

referrals

ICD coding

Generating health

statistics

Data backup  and disaster recovery

Nationality Saudi 86.0 94.7 67.3 80.4 20.7 20.8 11.6 12.3 Non-Saudi 87.1 98.6 71.1 75.9 36.6* 34.4* 34.4* 25.5*

Work position Intern/resident 91.9* 98.1 67.7 83.2 27.3 27.9 19.5 15.8 Specialist 72.7 89.9 74.3 72.5 26.2 26.8 28.4 20.7 Consultant 89.6 100.0* 67.2 71.9 33.3 30.2 22.8 22.7

Years of medical practice <1 90.1 97.2 68.3 80.6 23.7 28.8 15.9 11.8 10-20 79.7 94.4 73.6 77.5 36.2 24.6 30.4 28.6* >20 84.1 97.7 65.1 69.8 34.1 31.6 35.0* 27.3

Department Surgery 81.0 96.2 58.2 64.6 23.1 15.2 14.5 13.3 Medical 96.0* 99.2 75.2 90.4 20.8 32.8 10.5 12.5 ER 81.8 86.4 54.5 36.4 31.8 36.4 18.8 13.3 Ancillary services 33.3 100.0* 58.3 100.0 33.3 16.7 45.0 18.2 Others 88.9 95.2 77.8* 83.9* 47.5* 38.3* 46.4* 35.3*

Duration of practicing EHR <5 86.2 96.8 69.1 78.0 27.3 27.5 21.6 16.7 5-10 90.0 87.5 66.7 75.0 50.0 40.0 55.6* 55.6* > 10 100.0 100.0 75.0 100.0 50.0 33.3 25.0 33.3

Computer literacy Availability of computer at workplace

Yes 86.8 96.5 68.2 78.2 27.8 27.8 22.4 18.2 No 77.8 100.0 100.0* 77.8 44.4 37.5 33.3 28.6

Ever attending computer course Yes 86.9 98.4 73.5 81.0 33.3 33.3 25.9 18.9 No 86.2 95.3 65.7 76.2 24.5 24.2 20.5 18.3

Self-rating of computer skills Lowest 78.9 94.1 70.6 88.2 6.3 23.1 21.1 28.6 Average 87.7 97.2 69.4 76.7 30.0 27.6 20.2 16.9 Highest 84.8 95.2 67.7 80.6 28.3 31.3 31.6 20.8

*P= ≤0.05. ED: Emergency department, ICD: Implantable cardioverter‑defibrillator, EHR: Electronic health record, ED: Emergency departments

[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijhealthsci.org on Monday, March 19, 2018, IP: 84.235.83.65]

Mahalli: Use of electronic health records

Saudi Journal for Health Sciences - Vol 4, Issue 1, Jan-Apr 2015 39

Utilization of ICD coding was low (27.6%). Here, hospitals affiliate to MOH and patients do not pay for services.

Physicians frequently cited loss of access to medical records transiently if computer crashes or power fails as a barrier (85.6%). Current EHR users in Florida experienced the same barrier (20.4%).[23]

Adoption of EHR necessitates proper training for the users to facilitate this shift. Ineffective training of users was one of the most frequent barriers of EHR adoption.[30] Training could be in the form of orientation for new users and emphasizing the basic computer skills and continuous training for current users even the system is up and running. However, lack of IT technical support is impacting negatively on EHR adoption.[24] Lack of continuous training and support from IT staff was frequently cited barrier in the present study (79.3%). A study of minority practices reported that lack of computer technical support was a barrier for (63.1%), and lack of system training was a barrier for (78.3%) of users.[25] Another study showed that 65% of the users reported that poor training is a barrier in utilizing EHR system.[31]

Complexity of EHR system leads to diminished user satisfaction. Complexity and usability problems associated with EHRs results in physicians having to devote time and effort to master them.[16] One study illustrated that (7.4%) of current EHR system users experienced complexity of the system.[23] In Massachusetts, majority of physicians pointed to technical factors including lack of computer skills, lack of technical support and technical limitations as important barriers.[32] The present study pointed that complexity of technology affects utilizing EHR system was a frequently cited barrier (74.0%).

Advantage of EMR software customization is one of the most important benefits of EHR as it helps reduce the errors and users disappointment and improve the EHR quality.[33] Research proved that 15.3% of current EHR users experienced the same barrier as they cannot find a system that meets their special needs/requirements.[23] The present study demonstrated that lack of customizability of the system according to users’ needs was a frequently cited barrier (78.1%).

The present study noted that confidentiality, security and privacy were a barrier (68.3%). This goes hand in hand with findings in Massachusetts, where 55% of physicians noted concerns about privacy or security as a barrier to EHR adoption.[32]

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There was under‑utilization of almost all EHR functionalities. There was no use of any communication tool with patients such as e‑mails, fax and SMS. Physicians have no access to the medical records while they are outside the hospital. Patients have no access to their medical records. There was low utilization of ICD‑coding. Most common barriers were system hanging up, loss of access to records transiently if computer crashes or power fails, fastness in utilizing system and system takes additional time for data entry. Additionally, physicians cited lack of continuous training/support from IT staff in the hospital, lack of customizability of the system according to users’ needs, complexity of technology, disturbing patient‑doctor communication and lack in belief in EHR adoption as barriers.

Based on findings, the following is recommended: • Periodic assessment should be conducted to assess extent

Table 4: Barriers of physicians with the electronic health record system at governmental hospitals in Eastern Province, SA Barriers Hospital A 

(#133) Hospital B 

(#144) Hospital C 

(#42) Total Chi‑square P

No % No % No % No % Loss of access to medical records transiently if computer crashes or power fails

113 85.0 125 86.8 35 83.3 273 85.6 0.388 0.824

Fastness in utilizing EHR system (Minimal wait between screens, minimal boot-up time, etc.)

114 85.7 119 82.6 36 85.7 269 84.3 0.565 0.754

Additional time for data entry affects utilizing the EHR system 112 84.2 120 83.3 34 81.0 266 83.4 0.245 0.885 System hanging up problem 111 83.5 130 90.3 35 83.3 276 86.5 3.18 0.204 Lack of customizability of the system according to users’ needs 105 78.9 111 77.1 33 78.6 249 78.1 0.148 0.929 Lack of continuous training/support from IT staff in the hospital 105 78.9 117 81.3 31 73.8 253 79.3 1.11 0.573 Complexity of technology affects utilizing EHR system 96 72.2 109 75.7 31 73.8 236 74.0 0.444 0.801 Problems with confidentiality, security and data privacy (e. g., place of computer)

92 69.2 103 71.5 23 54.8 218 68.3 4.30 0.117

Disturbing patient-doctor communication 84 63.2 111 77.1 32 76.2 227 71.2 7.13 0.028* Problem with pregnancy alert system 80 60.2 102 70.8 26 61.9 208 65.2 3.71 0.156 Lack of belief in EHRs adoption 77 57.9 93 64.6 33 78.6 203 63.6 5.99 0.05* Problem with drug alert system (e. g., drug interactions, drug allergy, etc)

73 54.9 89 61.8 26 61.9 188 58.9 1.54 0.462

*P= ≤0.05. EHR: Electronic health record

[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijhealthsci.org on Monday, March 19, 2018, IP: 84.235.83.65]

Mahalli: Use of electronic health records

40 Saudi Journal for Health Sciences - Vol 4, Issue 1, Jan-Apr 2015

of utilization of different functionalities of the system and do improvements accordingly

• Orientation training should be done for the new physicians and continuous training for the current users. In addition, coordination should be done between the hospital and the EHR system vendor to conduct initial and follow up training

• 24‑hour availability of technical support in the hospitals • The option should be given to physicians to customize

the output according to users’ need • Improvement of different communication tools with

patients such as SMS and fax by the IT staff • A high attention should be drawn to the use of the emails

between physicians themselves and with their patients. This could be done via providing internet access to the hospital.

Limitation of study Low response rate of physicians. Lack of validity and reliability of the data collection tool.

REFERENCES

1. Shekelle PG, Morton SC, Keeler EB. Costs and benefits of health information technology. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2006;132:1‑71.

2. Blumenthal D, DesRoches C, Donelan K, Ferris T, Jha A, Kaushal R, et al. Health information technology in the United States: The information base for progress. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2006. p. 2.

3. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, et al. Systematic review: Impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:742‑52.

4. Trogdon JG, Allaire BT, Egan BM, Lackland DT, Masters D. Training providers in hypertension guidelines: Cost‑effectiveness evaluation of a continuing medical education program in South Carolina. Am Heart J 2011;162:786‑93.

5. Uslu A, Stausberg J. Value of the electronic medical record for hospital care: A review of the literature. J Healthc Eng 2011;2:271‑84.

6. Likourezos A, Chalfin DB, Murphy DG, Sommer B, Darcy K, Davidson SJ. Physician and nurse satisfaction with an Electronic Medical Record system. J Emerg Med 2004;27:419‑24.

7. Sittig DF, Kuperman GJ, Fiskio J. Evaluating physician satisfaction regarding user interactions with an electronic medical record system. Proc AMIA Symp 1999;400‑4.

8. Menachemi N, Powers T, Au DW, Brooks RG. Predictors of physician satisfaction among electronic health record system users. J Healthc Qual 2010;32:35‑41.

9. DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Rao SR, Donelan K, Ferris TG, Jha A, et al. Electronic health records in ambulatory care–A national survey of physicians. N Engl J Med 2008;359:50‑60.

10. Pfoh ER, Abramson E, Zandieh S, Edwards A, Kaushal R. Satisfaction after the transition between electronic health record systems at six ambulatory practices. J Eval Clin Pract 2012;18:1133‑9.

11. Friedman CP, Wyatt JC. Challenges of evaluation in medical informatics: Evaluation methods in medical informatics. New York: Springer 2006. p. 1‑386.

12. Hsiao CJ, Hing E. Use and characteristics of electronic health record systems among office‑based physician practices: United States, 2001‑2012. NCHS Data Brief Number 111, December 2012.

13. Loomis GA, Ries JS, Saywell RM Jr, Thakker NR. If electronic medical

records are so great, why aren’t family physicians using them? J Fam Pract 2002;51:636‑41.

14. Kunz MK. Embracing the electronic medical record: Helping nurses overcome possible barriers. Nurs Womens Health 2010;14:290‑300.

15. Ajami S, Bagheri‑Tadi T. Barriers for adopting electronic health records (EHRs) by physicians. Acta Inform Med 2013;21:129‑34.

16. 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;10:231.

17. Alyemeni M. Five Year Program to Transform Healthcare Delivery in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia Ministry of Health. Available from: http://www.himss.org/content/files/MiddleEast10_presentations/ CS1_MohammedAlYemeni.pdf [Last accessed on 2015 Jan 22].

18. Qurban M, Austria R. Public Perception on E‑Health Services: Implications of Preliminary Findings of the King Fahd Military Medical Complex for Military Hospitals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” Presented at the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS), Dubai, 2008.

19. Castillo VH, Martínez‑García AI, Pulido JR. A knowledge‑based taxonomy of critical factors for adopting electronic health record systems by physicians: A systematic literature review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2010;10:60. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC2970582/?tool=pubmed#B9 [Last accessed on 2015 Jan 22].

20. Elekwachi, Anyaogu, Rovira M. Limitations to the utilization of electronic medical records by healthcare professionals: A case study of small medical practices. 2008. Available from: http:// www.search.proquest.com.ezp.ud.edu.sa/docview/304816348 [Last accessed on 2015 Jan 22].

21. Lærum H, Ellingsen G, Faxvaag A. Doctors’ use of electronic medical records systems in hospitals: Cross sectional survey. BMJ 2001;323:1344‑8. Available from: http://www.bmj.com.ezp.ud.edu.sa/ content/323/7325/1344 [Last accessed on 2015 Jan 22].

22. Bah S, Alharthi H, El Mahalli AA, Al Qahtani M, Jabali A, AlKhatani N. Annual survey on the level and extent of usage of electronic health record (EHR) in government‑related hospitals in Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. Perspectives in Health Information Management Fall; 2011.

23. Goetz Goldberg D, Kuzen AJ, Feng LB, DeShazo JP, Love LE. EHRs in primary care practices: Benefits, challenges, and successful strategies. Am J Manag Care 2012;18:e48‑54.

24. Centre for Medicaid and Medicare services. PQRS and e‑prescribing. Available from: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/EHealth/Eprescribing/ index.html?redirect=/EPrescribing [Last accessed on 2012 Jun 02].

25. Drug‑drug and drug‑allergy interaction checking. Available from: http:// www.versaform.com/products/emr/emr‑demos/drug‑interactions [Last accessed on 2012 Jun 02].

26. Sequist TD, Cullen T, Hays H, Taualii MM, Simon SR, Bates DW. Implementation and use of an electronic health record within the Indian health service. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:191‑7. Available from: http:// www.jamia.bmj.com/content/14/2/191.full [Last accessed on 2015 Jan 22].

27. Herrin BS, Reeves M, Rupe C, Tegen A, Warner D. Communicating through the EHR. J AHIMA 2012;83:44‑5. Available from: http:// www.search.proquest.com.ezp.ud.edu.sa/docview/917414711/ fulltextPDF?accountid=136546# [Last accessed on 2015 Jan 22].

28. Brownlee M, Pandey S. The significance of EMR adoption in achieving meaningful use. HCIM and C 2010;42‑4. Available from: http://www. healthcareimc.com [Last accessed on 2015 Jan 22].

29. Cotea C. Electronic health record adoption: Perceived barriers and facilitators. Center for military and veterans health. University of Queensland Node; 2010. Avaialable at: http://www.camvh.org.au/docs/ ehealth/EHRAdoptionLiteratureReviewCMVHPublic20April2010.pdf.

30. Jha AK, Bates DW, Jenter C, Orav EJ, Zheng J, Cleary P, et al. Electronic health records: Use, barriers and satisfaction among physicians who care for black and Hispanic patients. J Eval Clin Pract 2009;15:158‑63.

31. Meade B, Buckley D, Boland M. What factors affect the use of electronic patient records by Irish GPs? Int J Med Inform 2009;78:551‑8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19375381 [Last accessed on 2015 Jan 22].

[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijhealthsci.org on Monday, March 19, 2018, IP: 84.235.83.65]

Mahalli: Use of electronic health records

Saudi Journal for Health Sciences - Vol 4, Issue 1, Jan-Apr 2015 41

How to cite this article: El Mahalli AA. Electronic health records: Use and barriers among physicians in eastern province of Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Health Sci 2015;4:32‑41. Source of Support: This is a budgeted project by Deanship of Scientific Research in University of Dammam‑ SA (Grant# 2012145), Conflict of Interest: None declared.

32. Simon SR, Kaushal R, Cleary PD, Jenter CA, Volk LA, Poon EG, et al. Correlates of electronic health record adoption in office practices: A statewide survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:110‑7.

33. Hill D. The advantage of EMR software customization: Using templates. Available from: http://blog.pchealthstop.com/?p=42 [Last accessed on 2015 Jan 22].

Author Help: Online submission of the manuscripts

Articles can be submitted online from http://www.journalonweb.com. For online submission, the articles should be prepared in two files (first page file and article file). Images should be submitted separately.

1) First Page File: Prepare the title page, covering letter, acknowledgement etc. using a word processor program. All information related to your identity should

be included here. Use text/rtf/doc/pdf files. Do not zip the files. 2) Article File: The main text of the article, beginning with the Abstract to References (including tables) should be in this file. Do not include any information

(such as acknowledgement, your names in page headers etc.) in this file. Use text/rtf/doc/pdf files. Do not zip the files. Limit the file size to 1024 kb. Do not incorporate images in the file. If file size is large, graphs can be submitted separately as images, without their being incorporated in the article file. This will reduce the size of the file.

3) Images: Submit good quality color images. Each image should be less than 4096 kb (4 MB) in size. The size of the image can be reduced by decreasing

the actual height and width of the images (keep up to about 6 inches and up to about 1800 x 1200 pixels). JPEG is the most suitable file format. The image quality should be good enough to judge the scientific value of the image. For the purpose of printing, always retain a good quality, high resolution image. This high resolution image should be sent to the editorial office at the time of sending a revised article.

4) Legends: Legends for the figures/images should be included at the end of the article file.

[Downloaded free from http://www.saudijhealthsci.org on Monday, March 19, 2018, IP: 84.235.83.65]