Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

A mixed methods study of how clinician ‘super users’ influence others during the implementation of electronic health records

Authors: Christina T Yuan, Elizabeth H Bradley, Ingrid M Nembhard

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Despite the potential for electronic health records (EHRs) to improve patient safety and quality of care, the intended benefits of EHRs are not always realized because of implementation-related challenges. Enlisting clinician super users to provide frontline support to employees has been recommended to foster EHR implementation success. In some instances, their enlistment has been associated with implementation success; in other cases, it has not. Little is known about why some super users are more effective than others. The purpose of this study was to identify super users’ mechanisms of influence and examine their effects on EHR implementation outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a longitudinal (October 2012 – June 2013), comparative case study of super users’ behaviors on two medical units of a large, academic hospital implementing a new EHR system. We assessed super users’ behaviors by observing 29 clinicians and conducting 24 in-depth interviews. The implementation outcome, clinicians’ information systems (IS) proficiency, was assessed using longitudinal survey data collected from 43 clinicians before and after the EHR start-date. We used multivariable linear regression to estimate the relationship between clinicians’ IS proficiency and the clinical unit in which they worked.

Results

Super users on both units employed behaviors that supported and hindered implementation. Four super user behaviors differed between the two units: proactivity, depth of explanation, framing, and information-sharing. The unit in which super users were more proactive, provided more comprehensive explanations for their actions, used positive framing, and shared information more freely experienced significantly greater improvement in clinicians’ IS proficiency (p =0.03). Use of the four behaviors varied as a function of super users’ role engagement, which was influenced by how the two units’ managers selected super users and shaped the implementation climate.

Conclusions

Super users’ behaviors in implementing EHRs vary substantively and can have important influence on implementation success.
Literature
1.
2.
Miller RH, Sim I. Physicians’ use of electronic medical records: barriers and solutions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;23:116–26.CrossRef
3.
Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, Girosi F, Meili R, Scoville R, et al. Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24:1103–17.CrossRef
4.
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.CrossRefPubMed
5.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
7.
Harrison MI, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care—an interactive sociotechnical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:542–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Øvretveit J, Scott T, Rundall TG, Shortell SM, Brommels M. Implementation of electronic medical records in hospitals: two case studies. Health Policy. 2007;84:181–90.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Keshavjee K, Bosomworth J, Copen J, Lai J, Kucukyazici B, Lilani R, et al.. Best practices in EMR implementation: a systematic review. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006;982.
10.
Klein KJ, Sorra JS. The challenge of innovation implementation. Acad Manage Rev. 1996;21:1055–80.
11.
Whitten JL, Barlow VM, Bentley L. Systems analysis and design methods. Boston: McGraw-Hill Professional; 1997.
12.
Boffa D, Pawola L. Identification and conceptualization of nurse super users. JHIM. 2005;20:60–8.
13.
Hummel J, Evans P. EHR Implementation with minimal practice disruption in primary care settings: the experience of the Washington & Idaho Regional Extension Center. Qualis Health. 2012.
14.
Simmons N. A super user group for your electronic health record! Comput Inform Nurs. 2013;31:53–6.CrossRefPubMed
15.
McIntire S, Clark T. Essential steps in super user education for ambulatory clinic nurses. Urol Nurs. 2009;29:337–43.PubMed
16.
McAlearney AS, Robbins J, Kowalczyk N, Chisolm DJ, Song PH. The role of cognitive and learning theories in supporting successful EHR system implementation training: a qualitative study. Med Care Res Rev. 2012;69:294–315.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Halbesleben JR, Wakefield DS, Ward MM, Brokel J, Crandall D. The relationship between super users’ attitudes and employee experiences with clinical information systems. Med Care Res Rev. 2009;66:82–96.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Marsden PV, Friedkin NE. Network studies of social influence. Sociol Method Res. 1993;22:127–51.CrossRef
19.
Salancik GR, Pfeffer J. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Admin Sci Quart. 1978;23:224–53.CrossRef
20.
Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986.
21.
Rice RE, Aydin C. Attitudes toward new organizational technology: network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Admin Sci Quart. 1991;36(2):219–44.CrossRef
22.
Gallivan MJ, Spitler VK, Koufaris M. Does information technology training really matter? A social information processing analysis of coworkers’ influence on IT usage in the workplace. J Manage Inform Syst. 2003;22:153–92.CrossRef
23.
Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambrdige University Press; 1991.CrossRef
24.
Wagner EL, Piccoli G. Moving beyond user participation to achieve successful IS design. Commun ACM. 2007;50:51–5.CrossRef
25.
26.
Bradley EH, Nembhard IM, Yuan CT, Stern AF, Curtis JP, Nallamothu BK, et al. What is the experience of national quality campaigns? Views from the field. Health Serv Res. 2010;45:1651–69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Curry LA, Nembhard IM, Bradley EH. Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research. Circulation. 2009;119:1442–52.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Edmondson AC, McManus SE. Methodological fit in management field research. Acad Manage Rev. 2007;32:1246–64.CrossRef
29.
Creswell JW, Piano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2007.
30.
Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res. 2007;42:1758–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Fetterman DM. Ethnography. In: Bickman L, Rog DG, editors. Handbook of applied social research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. p. 473–504.
32.
Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Rutgers, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 2009.
33.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2002.
34.
Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
35.
Devers KJ. How will we know “good” qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999;34:1153.PubMedPubMedCentral
36.
O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89:1245–51.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Kane GC, Borgatti SP. Centrality-IS proficiency alignment and workgroup performance. MIS Quart. 2011;35:1063–78.
38.
Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 1989;13(3):319–40.CrossRef
39.
Marcolin BL, Compeau DR, Munro MC, Huff SL. Assessing user competence: conceptualization and measurement. Inform Syst. 2000;11:37–60.CrossRef
40.
Yoon Y, Guimaraes T, O’Neal Q. Exploring the factors associated with expert systems success. MIS Quart. 1995;19(1):83–106.CrossRef
41.
Nunnally J. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
42.
Gioia DA. The thinking organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1986.
43.
Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi‐sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004;25:293–315.CrossRef
44.
Klein KJ, Conn AB, Sorra JS. Implementing computerized technology: an organizational analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86:811.CrossRefPubMed
45.
46.
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 2003;27(3):425–78.
47.
Rothbard NP. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Admin Sci Quart. 2001;46:655–84.CrossRef
48.
Cresswell K, Morrison Z, Crowe S, Robertson A, Sheikh A. Anything but engaged: user involvement in the context of a national electronic health record implementation. Inform Prim Care. 2011;19:191–206.PubMed
49.
50.
Sykes TA, Venkatesh V, Rai A. Explaining physicians’ use of EMR systems and performance in the shakedown phase. J Am Med Inform Assn. 2011;18:125–30.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A mixed methods study of how clinician ‘super users’ influence others during the implementation of electronic health records
Authors
Christina T Yuan
Elizabeth H Bradley
Ingrid M Nembhard
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0154-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Identifying the components of clinical vignettes describing Alzheimer’s disease or other dementias: a scoping review

Research article

An end-to-end hybrid algorithm for automated medication discrepancy detection

Study protocol

EMPOWER-support of patient empowerment by an intelligent self-management pathway for patients: study protocol

Research article

Development of a decision analytic model to support decision making and risk communication about thrombolytic treatment

Research article

Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting

Research article

Implementing electronic patient record systems (EPRs) into England’s acute, mental health and community care trusts: a mixed methods study