Variation in electronic health record adoption in European public hospitals: a configurational analysis of key functionalities
- 10 Downloads
The potential of electronic health record (EHR) to support the delivery of health care and save money and lives is well recognized; and their association with performance relies on the patterns of functionalities that are used by clinicians. However, the majority of research has investigated EHR adoption with a dichotomous dependent variable measuring EHR adoption or not. Other have studied individual EHR component or functionality. While these studies have contributed to understanding of EHR adoption, they provide an incomplete picture of hospital EHR capabilities and the study of EHR functionalities and associated configuration has only begun to be examined in detail, knowledge of which may generate important insights on actual practices of hospitals. It will assist healthcare executives to consider basing their decisions on empirically grounded knowledge rather than on purely normative discourses. Based on configurational approach, we use factor analysis and cluster analysis to uncover clusters of European public hospitals with similar patterns of EHR key functionalities made available to clinicians. As well we investigate the relationship between these patterns and hospital characteristics. Drawing on data from the European Hospital Survey, we empirically derive a 3-cluster solution, composed of three well-separated groups, from a data set of 711 European public hospitals. We find in addition that the three configurations exhibit great heterogeneity with regard to their polarity; that is the number and the nature of dominant categories of EHR key functionalities within each cluster. The three hospital profiles are: unipolar – hospitals with one dominant category of EHR functionalities (28% of the sample), tripolar - hospitals with three dominant categories of EHR functionalities (55%), and apolar - hospitals with no dominant category of EHR functionalities (17%), with tripolar being the largest and the most sophisticated. In particular, all the three clusters are distinct in terms of availability of key EHR functionalities namely, medical documentation, results viewing, and medication and prescription list functionalities available to their clinicians. The study also reveals the conditions under which these configuration occur. Our results provide an empirically and conceptually grounded taxonomy of European public hospitals with regard to EHR key functionalities.
KeywordsElectronic health record Health information technology Adoption Functionalities Public hospital And cluster analysis
Compliance with ethical standards
There was no need to apply for approval to our University Review Board because we are using secondary data collected and anonymized by the European Commission.
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflict of interest.
- 1.European Commission, Efficiency estimates of health care systems, in European Economy. 2015, Brussels: European Commission. 60.Google Scholar
- 2.de Montalvo F. A European common framework for health: a real possibility or an improbable myth? Lessons for the future healthcare system in the United States. DePaul Journal of Health Care Law. 2012;14(2):189–233.Google Scholar
- 4.European Commission, e-Health - making healthcare better for European citizens: An action plan for a European e-Health Area. Brussels: European Commission; 2004..Google Scholar
- 5.European Commission. eHealth Action Plan 2012-2020: Innovative healthcare for the 21st century. Brussels: European Commission; 2012.Google Scholar
- 6.WHO - World Health Organization. Legal frameworks for eHealth: based on the findings of the second global survey on eHealth. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.Google Scholar
- 7.Health Level Seven, HL7 EHR System Functional Model: A Major Development Towards Consensus on Electronic Health Record System Functionality. Health Level Seven; 2004.Google Scholar
- 8.The National Alliance for Health Information Technology. Report to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology on Defining Key Health Information Technology Terms. 2008.Google Scholar
- 9.van Poelgeest R, et al. Level of Digitization in Dutch Hospitals and the Lengths of Stay of Patients with Colorectal Cancer. J Med Syst. 2017:41(5).Google Scholar
- 14.Elnahal SM, et al. Electronic health record functions differ between best and worst hospitals. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(4):e121.Google Scholar
- 15.Blavin FE, Buntin MJ, Friedman CP. Alternative measures of electronic health record adoption among hospitals. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(12 Suppl HIT):e293–301.Google Scholar
- 19.The European Hospital & Healthcare Federation (HOPE), Hospitals in 27 member states of European Union. The European Hospital & Healthcare Federation (HOPE); 2009.Google Scholar
- 23.Kruse, C.S., et al., Barriers to Electronic Health Record Adoption: a Systematic Literature Review. J Med Syst, 2016. 40(12).Google Scholar
- 30.Meyer AD, Tsui AS, Hinings CR. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Acad Manag J. 1993;36(6):1175–95.Google Scholar
- 32.Hambrick DC. Taxonomic approaches to studying strategy: some conceptual and methodological issues. J Manag. 1984;10(1):27–41.Google Scholar
- 35.European Commission. European Hospital Survey - Benchmarking Deployment of eHealth services (2012-2013) - Data, E. Commission, editor. Brussels: European Commission; 2014.Google Scholar
- 36.European Commission. European Hospital Survey: Benchmarking Deployment of eHealth Services (2012-2013). Brussels: European Commission; 2014.Google Scholar
- 40.Hair JF, et al. Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2010.Google Scholar
- 42.Nunnally J. Psychometric theory (2nd edit.). Hillsdale: Mcgraw-Hill; 1978.Google Scholar
- 47.Tabachnick, B.G. and L.S. Fidell, Using multivariate statistics. 2007: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- 49.Kruse, C.S., et al., Factors associated with adoption of health information technology: a conceptual model based on a systematic review. JMIR Med Inform, 2014. 2(1).Google Scholar
- 50.Kruse, C.S., et al., Adoption factors of the electronic health record: a systematic review. JMIR Med Inform, 2016. 4(2).Google Scholar
- 53.(CDC), C.f.D.C.a.P. Definition - Meaningful Use. December 2018]; 2018. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/ehrmeaningfuluse/introduction.html.