Top

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Constructive eHealth evaluation: lessons from evaluation of EHR development in 4 Danish hospitals

Authors: Anna Marie Balling Høstgaard, Pernille Bertelsen, Christian Nøhr

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2017

Abstract

Background

Information and communication sources in the healthcare sector are replaced with new eHealth technologies. This has led to problems arising from the lack of awareness of the importance of end-user involvement in eHealth development and of the difficulties caused by using traditional summative evaluation methods. The Constructive eHealth evaluation method (CeHEM) provides a solution to these problems by offering an evaluation framework for supporting and facilitating end-user involvement during all phases of eHealth development. The aim of this paper is to support this process by sharing experiences of the eHealth evaluation method used in the introduction of electronic health records (EHR) in the North Denmark Region of Denmark. It is the first time the fully developed method and the experiences on using the CeHEM in all five phases of a full lifecycle framework is presented.

Methods

A case study evaluation of the EHR development process in the North Denmark Region was conducted from 2004 to 2010. The population consisted of clinicians, IT professionals, administrators, and vendors. The study involved 4 hospitals in the region. Data were collected using questionnaires, observations, interviews, and insight gathered from relevant documents.

Results

The evaluation showed a need for a) Early involvement of clinicians, b) The best possible representation of clinicians, and c) Workload reduction for those involved. The consequences of not providing this were a lack of ownership of decisions and negative attitudes towards the clinical benefits related to these decisions.

Further, the result disclosed that by following the above recommendations, and by providing feedback to the 4 actor groups, the physicians’ involvement was improved. As a result they took ownership of decisions and gained a positive attitude to the clinical benefits.

Conclusions

The CeHEM has proven successful in formative evaluation of EHR development and can point at important issues that need to be taken care of by management. The method provides a framework that takes care of feedback and learning during eHealth development. It can thus support successful eHealth development in a broader context while building on a well-known success factor: end-user involvement in eHealth development.

Ash JS, Stavri PZ, Kuperman GJ. A consensus statement on considerations for a successful CPOE implementation. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(3):229–34.

Cresswell KM, Bates DW, Sheikh A. Ten key considerations for the successful implementation and adoption of large-scale health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc [Internet]. 2013;20(e1):9–13. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23599226%5Cn. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC3715363.CrossRef

Edmondson AC. Framing for learning: lessons in successful technology implementation. Calif Manage Rev [Internet]. 2003;45(2):34–54. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsh&AN=9463628&site=ehost-live%5Cn. http://content.ebscohost.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=9463628&S=R&D=bsh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHr7ESep7c4zdnyOLCmr0yep7BSsqi4TLCWxWXS&Con.CrossRef

Pagliari C. Design and evaluation in ehealth: challenges and implications for an interdisciplinary field. J Med Internet Res. 2007;9(2):e15.

van Gemert-Pijnen JEWC, Nijland N, van Limburg M, Ossebaard HC, Kelders SM, Eysenbach G, et al. A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e111.

Seemann J, Dinesen B, Gustafsson J. Interorganizational innovation in systemic networks: TELEKAT findings. Innov J. 2013;18(3):1-18.

Berg M, Aarts J, Van der Lei J. ICT in health care: sociotechnical approaches. Methods Inf Med. 2003;42(4):297–301.

Kensing F, Blomberg J. Participatory design: issues and concerns. Comput Support Coop Work [Internet]. 1998;7(3–4):167–85. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008689307411.CrossRef

Mumford E. Designing human systems for new technology : the ETHICS method. Manchester: Manchester Business School; 1983. p. 108.

10.

Berg M. Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges. Int J Med Inform [Internet]. 2001;64(2–3):143–56. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11734382.CrossRef

11.

Lorenzi NM, Riley RT. Organizational Aspects of Health Informatics. New York: Springer Verlag; 1995.CrossRef

12.

Lorenzi NM, Riley RT, Blyth AJC, Southon G, Dixon BJ. Antecedents of the people and organizational aspects of medical informatics. J Am Med Informatics Assoc [Internet]. 1997;4(2):79–93. Available from: http://www.jamia.org/cgi/content/abstract/4/2/79.CrossRef

13.

Robertson A, Cresswell K, Takian A, Petrakaki D, Crowe S, Cornford T, et al. Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: qualitative analysis of interim results from a prospective national evaluation. BMJ. 2010;341:c4564.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Bødker K, Kensing F, Simonsen J. Participatory IT design : designing for business and workplace realities. London: MIT Press; 2004.

15.

Johnson CW. Why did that happen? Exploring the proliferation of barely usable software in healthcare systems. Qual Saf Health Care [Internet]. 2006;15 Suppl 1:i76–81. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17142614%5Cn. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC2464864.CrossRef

16.

Paré G, Sicotte C, Jacques H, Jacques H. The effects of creating psychological ownership on physicians’ acceptance of clinical information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc [Internet]. 2006;13(2):197–205. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16357351.CrossRef

17.

Our History - The Tavistock Institute [Internet]. Available from: http://www.tavinstitute.org/who-we-are/our-history/.

18.

Trist E. The Evolution of socio-technical systems: a conceptual framework and action research program. In: Conference on Organizational Design and Performance. 1980. p. 1–67.

19.

Cherns A. The principles of sociotechnical design. Hum Relations. 1976;29(8):783.CrossRef

20.

Mumford E, Weir M. Computersystems in work design: the ETHICS method. New York: John Wiley; 1979.

21.

Mumford E. The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Inf Syst J. 2006;16:317–42.CrossRef

22.

Müller Jens, Kjaer-Rasmussen Jens NC. Proactive technology assessment as a tool in HIS development. In: Barber B, editor. MEDINFO 1989. Singapore: North Holland; 1989. p. 306.

23.

Protti D, Protti D. What can the American electronic health record (EHR) pioneers tell us about what it takes to be successful? Healthc Manag Forum [Internet]. 2002;15(2):33–5. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0840470410605789, [cited 2016 Nov 2].CrossRef

24.

Edwards PK. Conceptual and methodological issues in evaluating emergent programs. Eval Program Plann. 1987;10(1):27–33.CrossRef

25.

Hornik R. Shedding some light on evaluation’s myths. Dev Commun Rep. 1980;29:1–4.

26.

Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, Anandan C, Cresswell K, Bokun T, et al. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med [Internet]. 2011;8(1):e1000387. Available from: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000387.

27.

Sheikh A, Cornford T, Barber N, Avery A, Takian A, Lichtner V, et al. Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: final qualitative results from prospective national evaluation in "early adopter" hospitals. BMJ [Internet]. 2011;343(1):d6054. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22006942, [cited 2016 Nov 2].CrossRef

28.

Wears RL, Berg M. Computer technology and clinical work: still waiting for Godot. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1261–3.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Ammenwerth E, de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care trends in evaluation research 1982–2002. Methods Inf Med [Internet]. 2005;44(1):44–56. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15778794.

30.

Douma KFL, Karsenberg K, Hummel MJM, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, van Harten WH. Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care [Internet]. 2007;23(2):162–8. Available from: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0266462307070262.CrossRef

31.

Dahler-Larsen P, Krogstrup HK. Evaluering og institutionelle standarder: Nyinstitutionelle betragtninger af evaluering som vor tids ritual. Politica. 2000;32(3):283-98.

32.

Catwell L, Sheikh A. Evaluating eHealth interventions: the need for continuous systemic evaluation. PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(8)e1000126.

33.

Bijker WE. How is technology made?-That is the question! Cambridge J Econ. 2009;34(1):63–76.CrossRef

34.

Schot J, Rip ARIE. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1997;268(1996):251–68.CrossRef

35.

Dehar MA, Casswell S, Duignan P. Formative and process evaluation of health promotion and disease prevention programs. Eval Rev. 1993;17(2):204–20.CrossRef

36.

Stetler CB, Legro MW, Wallace CM, Bowman C, Guihan M, Hagedorn H, et al. The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and the QUERI experience. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(Suppl2):S1-S8.

37.

Smits R, Leyten J, Den Hertog P. Technology assessment and technology policy in Europe: new concepts, new goals, new infrastructures. Policy Sci. 1995;28(3):271–99.CrossRef

38.

Smits R, Leyten J. Key issues in the institutionalization of technology assessment. Development of technology assessment in five European countries and the USA. Futures. 1988;20(1):19–36.CrossRef

39.

Kushniruk AW, Patel VL. Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems. J Biomed Inform. 2004;37(1):56–76.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Brender J, Brender J. Trends in assessment of IT-based solutions in healthcare and recommendations for the future. Int J Med Inform [Internet]. 1998;52(1–3):217–27. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1386505698001403, [cited 2016 Nov 6].CrossRef

41.

Berleur J, NT N, R D. Technology Assessment in Medical and Health Care Informatics: A Clarification of the Concepts. In: EMSJ van G, Talmon J, editors. Assessment and Evaluation of Information technology in Medicine. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1995. p. 21–34.

42.

Vissers MC, Talmon JL. Evaluating the MACRO solution. Multimedia application for clinical research in oncology. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1997;43 Pt B:741–5.PubMed

43.

Nøhr C, Bernstein K. Implementation and diffusion of medical informatics; the case of electronic prescribing communication between practitioners and pharmacies. Prim Heal Care Spec Gr Br Comput Soc. 1992;9:14–8.

44.

Nøhr C. Computer-assisted decision support - improved health? A prospective technology assessment. Aalborg: Aalborg University; 1991.

45.

Nøhr C, Bernstein K. Can HIS be developed without organizational change? The creative potential in user participation. In: MEDINFO 89. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 1989. p. 5.

46.

Nøhr C. Involving end-users in prospective technology assessment. The case of computer based information technology. In: The sixth meeting in the international society of technology assessment in health Care (ISTAHC). Cambridge; 1990:6(1).

47.

Nøhr C. Social Carriers of Technology. An Actor Oriented View on Diffusion. In: The Seventh Meeting in the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Helsinki Finland; 1991.

48.

Nøhr C, Wiegmann I. Technology assessment in danish hospitals. A matter og technology agreements. In: Technology and Democracy: The Use and Impact of Technology Assessment in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.

49.

Edquist C, Edqvist O. Social carriers of techniques for development. J Peace Res. 1979;16:313–31.CrossRef

50.

Høstgaard A.M. Succeskriterier og barrierer i Sundheds-it udvikling. Case studie af EPHudbudsprocessen i Region Nordjylland med fokus på slutbruger indvolvering (Success factors and barriers in Healthcare IT development. Case study of the EPH tender process in The North Denmark Region with a focus on end-user's involvement). Delft: River Publishers; 2015. Available at: http://www.riverpublishers.com/pdf/ebook/RP_E9788793379343.pdf.

51.

Müller J, Kjær-Rasmussen J, Nøhr C. Perspektiver for edb-teknologi i sygehusvæsenet. Aalborg: Centertrykkeriet AUC; 1988. ISBN: 87-89088-06-9.

52.

Checkland P. Soft systems methodology: a 30-year retrospective. Syst Res Behav Sci [Internet]. 1999;58(3):11–58. Available from: http://books.google.com/books?id=R2dQAAAAMAAJ&pgis=1.

53.

Checkland P. Systems thinking, systems practice. 1st. ed. Wiley J, editor. Systems thinking systems practice. Chichester; 1981. 356 p.

54.

Checkland P, Scholes J. Soft systems methodology in action. NY: Wiley; 1999. p. 418.

55.

Bertelsen P, Madsen I. “Participatorisk stuegangsanalyse med fokus på journalanvendelse: medarbejderindflydelse på arbejdsorganisering før og efter EPJ” (Participatory ward-analysis with focus on how to use the EHR: the degree of user- influence on the organization of work befor. In: Nøhr C, Høstgaard AM, editors. Håndbog i organisatoriske forandringer i forbindelse med implementering af elektroniske patientjournaler på sygehuse (Handbook in organizational changes when implementing EHR on hospitals). Aalborg: Aalborg University Press; 2004. p. 77–93.

56.

Nøhr C, Sørensen M, Kushniruk A. Method for testing a CPOE system in the medication process in a cardiology ward. In: Safran C, Reti H, Marin HF, editors. MEDINFO 2010 : Proceedings of the 13th World Congress on Medical Informatics. Cape Town: Ios Press; 2010. p. 183–7.

57.

Nøhr C, Botin L, Porot M. Hvordan styres operationsprogrammer for patienter. Tidsskr Dansk Sundhedsvaesen. 2006;82(7):244–7.

58.

Nøhr C, Botin L, Botin L. Methodology for analysis of work practice with video observation. Stud Health Technol Inform [Internet]. 2007;130:291–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17917202, [cited 2016 Nov 8].

59.

Nøhr C, Boye N. Towards computer supported clinical activity: a roadmap based on empirical knowledge and some theoretical reflections. In: Human, social, and organizational aspects of health information systems [Internet]. 2008. p. 67–83. Available from: http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?. doi: 10.4018/978-1-59904-792-8.

60.

Elliott G. Global business information technology : an integrated systems approach. Exeter: Addison Wesley; 2004. p 503.

61.

Barber N, Cornford T, Klecun E, Lichtner V, Takian A. User-centered healthcare IT: meaningful or meaningless? 2011. Available from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39256/, [cited 2016 Nov 8].

62.

Høstgaard AMB. Constructive eHealth evaluation: In: Reshaping medical practice and care with health information systems [Internet]. IGI Global; 2016 [cited 2016 Nov 8]. p. 44–86. Available from: http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-9870-3.ch003.

63.

Høstgaard AMB, Bertelsen P, Petersen LS, Nøhr C, et al. Constructive technology assessment for HIT development: learning, feedback and user involvement. In: Billika G, Bygholm A, Dencker M, Fossum M, Galster G, Hartvigsen G, editors. Scandinavian Conference on Health Informatics 2013 [Internet]. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press; 2013. p. 33–7. Available from: http://shi2013.org/, [cited 2016 Nov 8].

64.

Brender J. Handbook of evaluation methods for health informatics [Internet]. 2006. p. 253–320. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123704641500113.

65.

Yusof MM, Papazafeiropoulou A, Paul RJ, Stergioulas LK. Investigating evaluation frameworks for health information systems. Int J Med Inform. 2008;77(6):377–85.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Kørnøv L. Public participation. In: Kørnøv L, Thrane M, Remmen A, Lund H, editors. Tools for sustainable development. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitets Forlag; 2007. p. 721–38.

67.

Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev. 1997;22(4):853–86.

68.

Kanstrup AM, Bertelsen P. Participatory IT-support. In: Proceedings of the ninth conference on participatory design: expanding boundaries in design - volume 1 [Internet]. New York: ACM; 2006. p. 87–94. (PDC’06). Available from: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1147261.1147275.

69.

Ehn P. Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc: Umeå; 1988.

70.

Greenbaum J. PD a personal statement. Commun ACM. 1993;36(6):47.CrossRef

71.

Brandt E. Designing exploratory design games: a framework for participation in participatory design? In: Participatory design conference. 2006.

72.

Bertelsen P, Kanstrup AM. User innovation management a handbook. 1st ed. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press; 2011.

73.

Nielsen J. 10 Usability heuristics for user interface design [Internet]. 1995 [cited 2016 Nov 20]. Available from: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/.

74.

Nykänen P, Brender J, Talmon J, de Keizer N, Rigby M, Beuscart-Zephir M-C, et al. Guideline for good evaluation practice in health informatics (GEP-HI). Int J Med Inform [Internet]. 2011;80(12):815–27. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21920809, [cited 2016 Nov 8].CrossRef

75.

Kensing F, Simonsen J, Bodker K. MUST: a method for participatory design. In: Kensing F, Dykstra-Erickson E, Blomberg J, editors. The fourth beinnal conference on participatory design Cambridge. Massachusetts: CPSR; 1996. p. 129–40.

76.

Kaufman D, Roberts WD, Merrill J, Lai TY, Bakken S. Applying an evaluation tramework tor health information system design, development, and implementation. Nurs Res. 2006;55(2):S37–42.CrossRefPubMed

77.

Clarke K, O’Moore R, Smeets R, Talmon J, Brender J, McNair P, et al. A methodology for evaluation of knowledge-based systems in medicine. Artif Intell Med [Internet]. 1994;6(2):107–21. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/093336579490040X. [cited 2016 Nov 8].

78.

Greenhalgh T, Russell J. Why do evaluations of eHealth programs fail? An alternative set of guiding principles. PLoS Med. 2010;7(11):e1000360.

79.

Harrison MI, Koppel R, Har-Lev S. Unintented consequences of information technologies in health care - an interactive sociotechnical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:542–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

80.

Cresswell KM, Worth A, Sheikh A. Actor-network theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10:67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

81.

Kushniruk AW, Turner P. Who’s users? Participation and empowerment in socio-technical approaches to health IT developments. In: Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 2011. p. 280–5.

82.

European Commission. eHealth task force report – redesigning health in Europe for 2020 [Internet]. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2012. Available from: http://www.e-health-com.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/dateien/Downloads/redesigning_health-eu-for2020-ehtf-report2012_01.pdf.

83.

Stake R. The Art of Case Study Research. Calif: SAGE publishing; 1995. p. 192.

84.

Nøhr C, Høstgaard AMB, Vingtoft S. Brugererfaringer fra GEPKA-projektet på afdeling M, Århus Sygehus. Aalborg: Virtual Centre for Health Informatics; 2005.

85.

Scott JT, Rundall TG, Vogt TM, Hsu J. Kaiser permanente’s experience of implementing an electronic medical record: a qualitative study. BMJ Br Med J [Internet]. 2005;331(7528):1313–6. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25455558.CrossRef

86.

Brinkmann S, Kvale S. InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thirdth ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2014.

87.

Muhr T. ATLAS TI 5.0 users guide. manag educ. 2004.

88.

Høstgaard A, Bertelsen P, Nøhr C. Methods to identify, study and understand end-user participation in HIT development. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak [Internet]. 2011;11(1):57. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/11/57.CrossRef

89.

Høstgaard AM, Bertelsen P, Nøhr C. Evaluering af pilottest af Klinisk Proces “Vieweren”. Aalborg: Virtual Centre for Health Informatics, Aalborg University; 2011.

90.

Høstgaard AMB, Bertelsen P, Nøhr C. How are clinicians involved in EHR planning? A process analysis case study of a region in Denmark. In: Safran C, Reti S, Marin HF, editors. MEDINFO 2010: Proceedings of the 13th World Congress on Medical Informatics. Cape Town: Ios Press; 2010. p. 121–5.

91.

Høstgaard AMB. End-User Participation in Health IT Development. In: Belkhamza Z, Wafa SA, editors. Measuring Organizational Information Systems Success [Internet]. Hershey: IGI Global; 2012. [cited 2016 Nov 8]. p. 318–40. Available from: http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-0170-3.ch016

92.

Avison D, Fitzgerald G. Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer-based System (ETHICS). In: Avison DE, Fitzgerald G, editors. Information system development: methodologies, techniques and tools. Berkshire: The McGraw-Hill Companies; 1995. p. 353–64.

93.

Simonsen J, Hertzum M. A Regional PD Strategy for EPR Systems: Evidence- Based IT Development. In: Jacucci G, Kensing F, Wagner I, Blomberg J, editors. PDC 2006: Ninth Biennial Conference on Participatory Design, Vol II. CPSR, p.125–128.

94.

Simonsen J, Hertzum M. Participative design and the challenges of large-scale systems: extending the iterative PD approach. Proc Tenth Anniv Conf Particip Des. 2008;2008:1–10.

95.

Berg M, Winthereik BR. Waiting for Godot: episodes from the history of patient records. In: Health Information Management: Integrating Information and Communication Technology in Health Care Work. 2003. p. 234.CrossRef

96.

The National Research Ethics Committee. Act on research ethics review of health research projects [Internet]. Copenhagen; 2011. Available from: http://www.nvk.dk/english/act-on-research.

97.

The Danish Data Protection Agency. The act on processing of personal data [Internet]. Copenhagen; 2014. Available from: https://www.datatilsynet.dk/english/the-act-on-processing-of-personal-data/read-the-act-on-processing-of-personal-data/compiled-version-of-the-act-on-processing-of-personal-data/.

Title: Constructive eHealth evaluation: lessons from evaluation of EHR development in 4 Danish hospitals
Authors: Anna Marie Balling Høstgaard
Pernille Bertelsen
Christian Nøhr
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0444-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Constructive eHealth evaluation: lessons from evaluation of EHR development in 4 Danish hospitals

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Health care professionals’ attitudes towards evidence-based medicine in the workers’ compensation setting: a cohort study

FAM-FACE-SG: a score for risk stratification of frequent hospital admitters

Using a linked database for epidemiology across the primary and secondary care divide: acute kidney injury

Understanding how primary care practitioners perceive an online intervention for the management of hypertension

A novel data-driven workflow combining literature and electronic health records to estimate comorbidities burden for a specific disease: a case study on autoimmune comorbidities in patients with celiac disease

Exploring differences in the use of the statin choice decision aid and diabetes medication choice decision aid in primary care