EMR usability and patient safety: a national survey of physicians

IF 12.4 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
David Schwappach, Wolf Hautz, Gert Krummrey, Yvonne Pfeiffer, Raj M. Ratwani
{"title":"EMR usability and patient safety: a national survey of physicians","authors":"David Schwappach, Wolf Hautz, Gert Krummrey, Yvonne Pfeiffer, Raj M. Ratwani","doi":"10.1038/s41746-025-01657-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Despite widespread adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs), concerns persist regarding their usability and implications for patient safety. This national cross-sectional survey assessed physicians’ perceptions of EMR usability across safety-relevant domains. Among 1933 respondents from diverse care settings, 56% reported that their EMR did not enhance patient safety, and 50% perceived their system as inefficient. Usability ratings averaged 52% of the maximum score. Statistically significant differences were observed between EMRs in outpatient (η² = 0.13) and hospital (η² = 0.37) settings. Multilevel modeling attributed 38% of the variance in usability ratings to differences between EMRs, 51% to hospital-level variation within EMRs, and 11% to physician-level differences. Canonical discriminant analysis identified key differentiating usability features, including system response times, excessive alerts, prevention of data entry errors, and support for collaboration. These findings underscore substantial limitations in current EMR systems and reinforce the value of comparative usability assessments to inform targeted improvements in digital health infrastructure.</p>","PeriodicalId":19349,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Digital Medicine","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Digital Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01657-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite widespread adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs), concerns persist regarding their usability and implications for patient safety. This national cross-sectional survey assessed physicians’ perceptions of EMR usability across safety-relevant domains. Among 1933 respondents from diverse care settings, 56% reported that their EMR did not enhance patient safety, and 50% perceived their system as inefficient. Usability ratings averaged 52% of the maximum score. Statistically significant differences were observed between EMRs in outpatient (η² = 0.13) and hospital (η² = 0.37) settings. Multilevel modeling attributed 38% of the variance in usability ratings to differences between EMRs, 51% to hospital-level variation within EMRs, and 11% to physician-level differences. Canonical discriminant analysis identified key differentiating usability features, including system response times, excessive alerts, prevention of data entry errors, and support for collaboration. These findings underscore substantial limitations in current EMR systems and reinforce the value of comparative usability assessments to inform targeted improvements in digital health infrastructure.

Abstract Image

电子病历可用性和患者安全:一项全国医生调查
尽管电子医疗记录(emr)被广泛采用,但人们对其可用性和对患者安全的影响的担忧仍然存在。这项全国性的横断面调查评估了医生对电子病历在安全相关领域的可用性的看法。在1933名来自不同护理机构的受访者中,56%的人报告他们的电子病历没有提高患者的安全,50%的人认为他们的系统效率低下。可用性评分平均为最高分的52%。门诊(η²= 0.13)和医院(η²= 0.37)的emr差异有统计学意义。多水平模型将38%的可用性评级差异归因于emr之间的差异,51%归因于emr内部医院水平的差异,11%归因于医生水平的差异。规范判别分析确定了关键的可用性特征,包括系统响应时间、过多警报、防止数据输入错误和支持协作。这些发现强调了当前电子病历系统的重大局限性,并加强了比较可用性评估的价值,为数字卫生基础设施的有针对性改进提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
25.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
170
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: npj Digital Medicine is an online open-access journal that focuses on publishing peer-reviewed research in the field of digital medicine. The journal covers various aspects of digital medicine, including the application and implementation of digital and mobile technologies in clinical settings, virtual healthcare, and the use of artificial intelligence and informatics. The primary goal of the journal is to support innovation and the advancement of healthcare through the integration of new digital and mobile technologies. When determining if a manuscript is suitable for publication, the journal considers four important criteria: novelty, clinical relevance, scientific rigor, and digital innovation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信