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
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

How organizational escalation prevention potential affects success of implementation of innovations: electronic medical records in hospitals

Authors: Mattijs S. Lambooij, Ferry Koster

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Escalation of commitment is the tendency that (innovation) projects continue, even if it is clear that they will not be successful and/or become extremely costly. Escalation prevention potential (EPP), the capability of an organization to stop or steer implementation processes that do not meet their expectations, may prevent an organization of losing time and money on unsuccessful projects. EPP consists of a set of checks and balances incorporated in managerial practices that safeguard management against irrational (but very human) decisions and may limit the escalation of implementation projects. We study whether successful implementation of electronic medical records (EMRs) relates to EPP and investigate the organizational factors accounting for this relationship.

Methods

Structural equation modelling (SEM), using questionnaire data of 427 doctors and 631 nurses who had experience with implementation and use of EMRs in hospitals, was applied to study whether formal governance and organizational culture mediate the relationship between EPP and the perceived added value of EMRs.

Results

Doctors and nurses in hospitals with more EPP report more successful implementation of EMR (in terms of perceived added value of the EMR). Formal governance mediates the relation between EPP and implementation success. We found no evidence that open or innovative culture explains the relationship between EPP and implementation success.

Conclusions

There is a positive relationship between the level of EPP and perceived added value of EMRs. This relationship is explained by formal governance mechanisms of organizations. This means that management has a set of tangible tools to positively affect the success of innovation processes. However, it also means that management needs to be able to critically reflect on its (previous) actions and decisions and is willing to change plans if elements of EPP signal that the implementation process is hampered.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Sleesman DJ, Conlon DE, McNamara G, Miles JE. Cleaning up the big muddy: a meta-analytic review of the determinants of escalation of commitment. Acad Manag J. 2012;55:541–62.CrossRef
2.
Koster F, Lambooij MS. Escalation prevention potential of innovation projects. The case of electronic medical records in hospitals, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice. 2016. In Pres.
3.
Pan G, Pan SL. Transition to IS project de-escalation: an exploration into management executives’ influence behaviors. IEEE Trans Eng Manag. 2011;58:109–23.CrossRef
4.
Staw BM. Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1976;16:27–44.CrossRef
5.
Ross J, Staw BM. Organizational escalation and exit: lessons from the Shoreham nuclear power plant. Acad Manag J. 1993;36:701–32.CrossRef
6.
Brockner J. The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: toward theoretical progress. Acad Manag Rev. 1992;17:39–61.
7.
Keil M, Robey D. Turning around troubled software projects: an exploratory study of the de-escalation of commitment to failing courses of action. J Manag Inf Syst. 1999;15:63–87.CrossRef
8.
Ku G. Learning to de-escalate: the effects of regret in escalation of commitment. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2008;105:221–32.CrossRef
9.
Montealagre R, Keil M. De-escalating information technology projects: lessons from the Denver International Airport. MIS Q. 2000;24:417–47.CrossRef
10.
Pan G, Pan SL, Newman M. Managing information technology project escalation and deescalation: an approach-avoidance perspective. IEEE Trans Eng Manag. 2009;56:76–94.CrossRef
11.
Schulz-Hardt S, Thurow-Kröning B, Frey D. Preference-based escalation: a new interpretation for the responsibility effect in escalating commitment and entrapment. Organ Behav Hum Decis Making Process. 2009;108:175–86.CrossRef
12.
Simonson I, Staw BM. De-escalation strategies: a comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action. J Appl Psychol. 1992;77:419–26.CrossRef
13.
Cooper RB, Zmud RW. Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Manag Sci. 1990;36:123–39.CrossRef
14.
Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, Morton SC, Shekelle PG. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:742–52.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Goldzweig CL, Towfigh A, Maglione M, Shekelle PG. Costs and benefits of health information technology: new trends from the literature. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28:w282–293.CrossRef
16.
Holroyd-Leduc JM, Lorenzetti D, Straus SE, Sykes L, Quan H. The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18:732–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
18.
Shekelle PG, Morton SC, Keeler EB. Costs and benefits of health information technology. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2006;(132):1–71.
19.
Menachemi N, Brooks RG. Reviewing the benefits and costs of electronic health records and associated patient safety technologies. J Med Syst. 2006;30:159–68.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Laerum H, Karlsen TH, Faxvaag A. Use of and attitudes to a hospital information system by medical secretaries, nurses and physicians deprived of the paper-based medical record: a case report. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2004;4:18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Noblin A, Cortelyou-Ward K, Cantiello J, Breyer T, Oliveira L, Dangiolo M, Cannarozzi M, Yeung T, Berman S. EHR implementation in a new clinic: a case study of clinician perceptions. J Med Syst. 2013;37:9955.CrossRefPubMed
22.
McMurray J, Hicks E, Johnson H, Elliott J, Byrne K, Stolee P. ‘Trying to find information is like hating yourself every day’: the collision of electronic information systems in transition with patients in transition. Health Informatics J. 2013;19:218–32.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Sassen EJ. Love, hate, or indifference: how nurses really feel about the electronic health record system. Comput Inform Nurs. 2009;27:281–7.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Babbott S, Manwell LB, Brown R, Montague E, Williams E, Schwartz M, Hess E, Linzer M. Electronic medical records and physician stress in primary care: results from the MEMO Study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21:e100–106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Ford EW, Menachemi N, Peterson LT, Huerta TR. Resistance is futile: but it is slowing the pace of EHR adoption nonetheless. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16:274–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Grol RPTM, Bosch MC, Hulscher MEJL, Eccles MP, Wensing M. Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q. 2007;85:93–138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
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
28.
Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CHI. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013;8:22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82:581–629.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Holden RJ. Physicians’ beliefs about using EMR and CPOE: in pursuit of a contextualized understanding of health IT use behavior. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79:71–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
McGinn CA, Grenier S, Duplantie J, Shaw N, Sicotte C, Mathieu L, Leduc Y, Legare F, Gagnon MP. Comparison of user groups’ perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2011;9:46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Whitten P, Buis L, Mackert M. Factors impacting providers’ perceptions regarding a midwestern university-based EMR. Telemed J E Health. 2007;13:391–7.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Taft T, Lenert L, Sakaguchi F, Stoddard G, Milne C. Effects of electronic health record use on the exam room communication skills of resident physicians: a randomized within-subjects study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22:192–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Miller RH, Sim I. Physicians’ use of electronic medical records: barriers and solutions. Health Aff. 2004;23:116–26.CrossRef
35.
Bass BM. Handbook of leadership: theory, research and managerial applications. New York, NY: Free Press; 2008.
36.
West MA, Borrill CS, Dawson JF, Brodbeck F, Shapiro DA, Haward B. Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care. Leadersh Q. 2003;14:393–410.CrossRef
37.
Paré G, Sicotte C, Poba-Nzaou P, Balouzakis G. Clinicians’ perceptions of organizational readiness for change in the context of clinical information system projects: insights from two cross-sectional surveys. Implement Sci. 2011;6:15. doi: 10.​1186/​1748-5908-6-15.
38.
Edwards C. Nursing leaders serving as a foundation for the electronic medical record. J Trauma Nurs. 2012;19:111–4. quiz 115-116.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Reynolds K, Nowinski C, Becker S, Beaumont J. Organizational culture changes in an integrated delivery system with a fully implemented electronic medical record. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006:1075.
40.
Retchin SM, Wenzel RP. Electronic medical record systems at academic health centers: advantages and implementation issues. Acad Med. 1999;74:493–8.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Nemeth LS, Feifer C, Stuart GW, Ornstein SM. Implementing change in primary care practices using electronic medical records: a conceptual framework. Implement Sci. 2008;3:3. doi: 10.​1186/​1748-5908-3-3.
42.
de Jong JPJ, den Hartog DN. Determinants of innovative behaviour: research on knowledge workers in SME (Determinanten van innovatief gedrag: een onderzoek onder kenniswerkers in het MKB). Gedrag Organ. 2005;18:235–59.
43.
van Woerkom M. Critical reflections at work: bridging individual and organizational learning. Enschede: Printpartners Ipskamp; 2003.
44.
Roseel Y. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–36.
45.
Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models. New York: University Press of America; 1979.
46.
Schumacher RE, Lomax RG. A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Hilsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1996.
47.
Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assesing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage; 1993. p. 136–62.
48.
Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Meth Psychol Res Online. 2003;8:23–74.
49.
50.
Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2008;6:53–60.
51.
52.
DeLone WH, Mclean ER. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res. 1992;3:60–95.CrossRef
53.
Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Manag Inf Syst Q. 1989;13:319–40.CrossRef
54.
Kraatz AS, Lyons CM, Tomkinson J. Strategy and governance for successful implementation of an enterprise-wide ambulatory EMR. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2010;24:34–40.PubMed
55.
Greenhalgh T, Morris L, Wyatt JC, Thomas G, Gunning K. Introducing a nationally shared electronic patient record: case study comparison of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82:e125–138.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Lium JT, Tjora A, Faxvaag A. No paper, but the same routines: a qualitative exploration of experiences in two Norwegian hospitals deprived of the paper based medical record. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
El-Kareh R, Gandhi TK, Poon EG, Newmark LP, Ungar J, Lipsitz S, Sequist TD. Trends in primary care clinician perceptions of a new electronic health record. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:464–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Cummings GG, MacGregor T, Davey M, Lee H, Wong CA, Lo E, Muise M, Stafford E. Leadership styles and outcome patterns for the nursing workforce and work environment: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47:363–85.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
How organizational escalation prevention potential affects success of implementation of innovations: electronic medical records in hospitals
Authors
Mattijs S. Lambooij
Ferry Koster
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0435-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Implementation Science 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research

Can implementation support help community-based settings better deliver evidence-based sexual health promotion programs? A randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®

Research

How providers influence the implementation of provider-initiated HIV testing and counseling in Botswana: a qualitative study

Research

High impact of implementation on school-based smoking prevention: the X:IT study—a cluster-randomized smoking prevention trial

Study protocol

Researching effective approaches to cleaning in hospitals: protocol of the REACH study, a multi-site stepped-wedge randomised trial

Research

The social network around influenza vaccination in health care workers: a cross-sectional study

Study protocol

A protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using the Health Teams Advancing Patient Experience: Strengthening Quality (Health TAPESTRY) platform approach to promote person-focused primary healthcare for older adults