Healthcare professionals’ cross-organizational access to electronic health records: A scoping review

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS International Journal of Medical Informatics Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105688
Øivind Skeidsvoll Solvang , Sonja Cassidy , Conceição Granja , Terje Solvoll
{"title":"Healthcare professionals’ cross-organizational access to electronic health records: A scoping review","authors":"Øivind Skeidsvoll Solvang ,&nbsp;Sonja Cassidy ,&nbsp;Conceição Granja ,&nbsp;Terje Solvoll","doi":"10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Cross-organizational access to shared electronic health records can enhance integrated, people-centered health services. However, a gap remains between these potential benefits and the limited support currently offered by electronic health records. The Valkyrie research project aims to bridge this gap by developing a technical prototype of an architecture to promote healthcare service coordination.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To inform the Valkyrie project, we aimed to evaluate approaches for healthcare professionals’ access to electronic health records across healthcare providers and identify factors influencing the success and failure of these approaches.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><div>Using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews, searches were conducted in six research databases and grey literature, without limitations on year or language. Papers selected for full-text review were analyzed, and data was extracted using standardized forms that reflected the population, concept, and context framework and the categorization model used in the qualitative analysis of the barriers and facilitators reported in the included papers.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among the 290 identified papers, five were deemed eligible for full-text review. The included papers were heterogeneous in country, year of publication, study setting, implementation level, and access approaches to electronic health records, highlighting various techniques, from federated to centralized, for accessing shared electronic health records.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion and conclusion</h3><div>The review did not identify one single superior access approach. However, a hybrid approach incorporating components from the different approaches combined with emerging technologies may benefit the Valkyrie project. The key facilitators were identified as improved information quality and flexible and easy access. In contrast, lack of trust and poor information quality were significant barriers to successful cross-organizational access to electronic health records. Future research should explore alternative access approaches, considering information quality, user training, and collegial trust across healthcare providers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54950,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","volume":"193 ","pages":"Article 105688"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505624003514","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Cross-organizational access to shared electronic health records can enhance integrated, people-centered health services. However, a gap remains between these potential benefits and the limited support currently offered by electronic health records. The Valkyrie research project aims to bridge this gap by developing a technical prototype of an architecture to promote healthcare service coordination.

Objective

To inform the Valkyrie project, we aimed to evaluate approaches for healthcare professionals’ access to electronic health records across healthcare providers and identify factors influencing the success and failure of these approaches.

Materials and methods

Using the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews, searches were conducted in six research databases and grey literature, without limitations on year or language. Papers selected for full-text review were analyzed, and data was extracted using standardized forms that reflected the population, concept, and context framework and the categorization model used in the qualitative analysis of the barriers and facilitators reported in the included papers.

Results

Among the 290 identified papers, five were deemed eligible for full-text review. The included papers were heterogeneous in country, year of publication, study setting, implementation level, and access approaches to electronic health records, highlighting various techniques, from federated to centralized, for accessing shared electronic health records.

Discussion and conclusion

The review did not identify one single superior access approach. However, a hybrid approach incorporating components from the different approaches combined with emerging technologies may benefit the Valkyrie project. The key facilitators were identified as improved information quality and flexible and easy access. In contrast, lack of trust and poor information quality were significant barriers to successful cross-organizational access to electronic health records. Future research should explore alternative access approaches, considering information quality, user training, and collegial trust across healthcare providers.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗保健专业人员跨组织访问电子健康记录:范围界定审查
背景跨机构访问共享电子健康记录可以加强以人为本的综合医疗服务。然而,这些潜在的好处与电子健康记录目前提供的有限支持之间仍存在差距。为了给 Valkyrie 项目提供信息,我们旨在评估医疗保健专业人员跨医疗保健提供方访问电子健康记录的方法,并确定影响这些方法成功与失败的因素。对选中进行全文审阅的论文进行了分析,并使用标准化表格提取数据,这些表格反映了人口、概念和背景框架,以及对所收录论文中报告的障碍和促进因素进行定性分析时使用的分类模型。 结果在所确定的 290 篇论文中,有 5 篇被认为符合全文审阅的条件。被收录的论文在国家、发表年份、研究背景、实施水平和电子病历访问方法方面各不相同,突出了从联合到集中等各种访问共享电子病历的技术。不过,将不同方法的组成部分与新兴技术相结合的混合方法可能会使瓦尔基里项目受益。关键的促进因素被认为是信息质量的提高和灵活便捷的访问。相比之下,缺乏信任和信息质量差是成功跨组织访问电子病历的主要障碍。未来的研究应考虑信息质量、用户培训和医疗服务提供者之间的同事信任,探索其他访问方法。
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 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Medical Informatics
International Journal of Medical Informatics 医学-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.10%
发文量
217
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: International Journal of Medical Informatics provides an international medium for dissemination of original results and interpretative reviews concerning the field of medical informatics. The Journal emphasizes the evaluation of systems in healthcare settings. The scope of journal covers: Information systems, including national or international registration systems, hospital information systems, departmental and/or physician''s office systems, document handling systems, electronic medical record systems, standardization, systems integration etc.; Computer-aided medical decision support systems using heuristic, algorithmic and/or statistical methods as exemplified in decision theory, protocol development, artificial intelligence, etc. Educational computer based programs pertaining to medical informatics or medicine in general; Organizational, economic, social, clinical impact, ethical and cost-benefit aspects of IT applications in health care.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Analysis of missing data in electronic health records of people with diabetes in primary care in Spain: A population-based cohort study What information do patients pay more attention to in online physician selection? Information needs model for online medical choice decision-making based on trust theory and fuzzy decision Systematic construction of composite radiation therapy dataset using automated data pipeline for prognosis prediction Perceptions of healthcare professionals and patients with cardiovascular diseases on mHealth lifestyle apps: A qualitative study
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1