RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 How do inter-organisational electronic health records affect hospital physician and pharmacist decisions? A scoping review
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.09.09.21254419
DO 10.1101/2021.09.09.21254419
A1 Scott, Philip
A1 Nakkas, Haythem
A1 Roderick, Paul
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/10/2021.09.09.21254419.abstract
AB Objective To provide an overview of the effects of inter-organisational electronic health records on inpatient diagnosis and treatment decisions by hospital physicians and pharmacists.Materials and Methods Five-stage scoping review, using distributed cognition and the information value chain as guiding conceptual models. Eligibility criteria: empirical studies addressing how shared health records were used in inpatient clinical decision-making, published 2008-18. Sources: Healthcare Databases Advanced Search, covering nine sources including PubMed. Charting methods: data extraction form completed by one author, with inter-rater reliability assessment at title and abstract review.Results Quantitative studies (n=14) often reported relatively low usage of shared records (6.8% to 37.1% of cases). Usage is associated with reduction in diagnostic testing and readmission and variable effects on admissions and overall costs. Qualitative studies (n=6) reported avoidance of duplicate diagnostics, changing clinical decisions, the value of historical laboratory results and optimising the timeliness of care. We found no explicit use of explanatory theoretical models, but there is implicit evidence of an information value chain. We found only one study specifically about pharmacists.Discussion Relatively low usage is due to clinical judgement whether “extra” data is needed, given current knowledge of the presenting condition and relative complexity. We suggest that extensive EHRs need recommender systems to highlight (sometimes unexpected) relevant content, in parallel with professional guidance on indications for consulting shared records.Conclusions Clinicians only consult shared health records when they must. Mixed effects on process outcomes are due to the hidden variables of patient complexity, clinician judgement and organisational context.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by NHS North East Hampshire and Farnham Clinical Commissioning Group, on behalf of the NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic Transformation Partnership.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:N/AAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [PS], upon reasonable request.