Search

Summary Objectives: To compare two clinical workstations in one hospital with respect to technical, organizational, cultural and human factors. One clinical workstation was a GUI to the HIS. The other was an electronic patient record for stroke. Methods: Data were collected by means of in-depth interviews with end-users of both clinical workstations. The interviews were audio taped and transcribed for analysis. Results: End users assessed both clinical workstations as user friendly. Coordination between health care workers was perceived to be enhanced. However, in both situations poor communication between management, implementers and users resulted in uncertainty and skepticism about future perspectives. Furthermore, it appeared that inpatient and outpatient settings needed clinical workstations with different requirements for an optimal fit between work practices and information system. Conclusions: Regardless of the domain and content of a workstation, it can support coordination between disciplines. The communication concerning the information technology strategy deserves much attention. Finally, the requirements for inpatient and outpatient workstations differ.

Summary Objectives: Many shared-care projects feel the need for electronic patient-record (EPR) systems. In absence of practical experiences from paper record keeping, a theoretical model is the only reference for the design of these systems. In this article, we review existing models of individual clinical practice and integrate their useful elements. We then present a generic model of clinical practice that is applicable to both individual and collaborative clinical practice. Methods: We followed the principles of the conversation-for-action theory and the DEMO method. According to these principles, information can only be generated by a conversation between two actors. An actor is a role that can be played by one or more human subjects, so the model does not distinguish between inter-individual and intra-individual conversations. Results: Clinical practice has been divided into four actors: service provider, problem solver, coordinator, and worker. Each actor represents a level of clinical responsibility. Any information in the patient record is the result of a conversation between two of these actors. Connecting different conversations to one another can create a process view with meta-information about the rationale of clinical practice. Such process view can be implemented as an extension to the EPR. Conclusions: The model has the potential to cover all professional activities, but needs to be further validated. The model can serve as a theoretical basis for the design of EPR-systems for shared care, but a successful EPR-system needs more than just a theoretical model.

This article presents an overview of a research project concerning the consultation of medical narratives in the electronic medical record (EMR). It describes an analysis of user needs, the design and implementation of a prototype EMR system, and the evaluation of the ease of consultation of medical narratives when using this system. In a questionnaire survey, 85 hospital physicians judged the quality of their paper-based medical record with respect to data entry, information retrieval and some other aspects. Participants were more positive about the paper medical record than the literature suggests. They wished to maintain the flexibility of data entry but indicated the need to improve the retrieval of information. A prototype EMR system was developed to facilitate the consultation of medical narratives. These parts were divided into labeled segments that could be arranged source-oriented and problem-oriented. This system was used to evaluate the ease of information retrieval of 24 internists and 12 residents at a teaching hospital when using free-text medical narratives divided at different levels of detail. They solved, without time pressure, some predefined problems concerning three voluminous, inpatient case records. The participants were randomly allocated to a sequence that was balanced by patient case and learning effect. The division of medical narratives affected speed, but not completeness of information retrieval. Progress notes divided into problem-related segments could be consulted 22% faster than when undivided. Medical history and physical examination divided into segments at organ-system level could be consulted 13% faster than when divided into separate questions and observations. These differences were statistically significant. The fastest divisions were also appreciated as the best combination of easy searching and best insight in the patient case. The results of our evaluation study suggest a trade-off between searching and reading: too much detailed segments will delay the consultation of medical narratives. Validation of the results in daily practice is recommended.