Table 5.
Synthesis of the results for EHR (14 studies;78–91 N(%))
| N* | + | − | +/− | Ø | Examples | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | ||||||
| Clinical processes79 81–91 | 12 (100) | 11 (92) | 1 (8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | + Improved communication; increased accuracy of records; better detection and assessment; improved quality of care; decreased medication use − Low timeliness of data reporting; lack of sensitivity to health status change |
| Patients’ health outcomes80 | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | + Quality of life |
| Productivity, efficiency, costs80 88 | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | + Efficiency of resources use; cost saving |
| Clinicians’ satisfaction78 79 84 88 | 4 (100) | 2 (50) | 2 (50) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | + Employee satisfaction; satisfaction regarding informational functionality of software − Fax was the most preferred method for communication of discharge summaries; limited ability to comply with suggestions |
| Technology | ||||||
| Compatibility84 88 90 91 | 4 (100) | 0 (0) | 3 (75) | 1 (25) | 0 (0) | − Poor ergonomics; loss of human contact; privacy issues |
| Simplicity78 79 81 82 85 88 | 6 (100) | 3 (50) | 1 (17) | 2 (33) | 0 (0) | + Easy to use − Difficulties may arise when using EHR; not user friendly; and technical problems; confusing |
| Implementation | ||||||
| Trialability78 79 85 87 88 91 | 6 (100) | 3 (50) | 3 (50) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | + Suitable technical support − Insufficient or inadequate training; insufficient support |
| Observability78 88 91 | 3 (100) | 2 (67) | 1 (33) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | + Good observability − Lack of awareness about EHR |
N*, Number of studies for which the dimension was evaluated; +, positive evaluation; −, negative evaluation; +/−, evaluation that was both positive and negative; Ø, no influence.
EHR, electronic health records.