Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 581–593 | Cite as

Satisfaction predictors and attitudes towards electronic prescribing systems in three UK hospitals

  • Derar H. Abdel-QaderEmail author
  • Judith A. Cantrill
  • Mary P. Tully
Research Article


Objective Measuring satisfaction of technology users, along with satisfaction determinants, is important to enhance system utilisation and identify potential problems. The aim of this study was to investigate pharmacists’ and doctors’ attitudes towards e-prescribing systems, and assess the predictors of their satisfaction. Method A cross-sectional survey was conducted, with 67 pharmacists and 335 doctors in three English hospitals completing a pre-piloted, postal questionnaire. Results The majority of pharmacists and doctors agreed that their e-prescribing system improved the efficiency of prescribing, and reduced dosage regimen errors. However, the majority did not believe that the system created more time for near-patient clinical activities, or sped up patient discharge. More pharmacists than doctors believed that the system improved the quality of patient care. Doctors were more likely to perceive that the e-prescribing system reduced formulation and omission errors. Doctors and pharmacists from the same hospital had similar opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of the e-prescribing system. Nine variables (out of 29 potential independent variables), seven of which were related to e-prescribing system efficiency, were significant predictors of user satisfaction. Conclusion Overall, respondents were satisfied with the systems; however, pharmacists were generally more satisfied than doctors. The number of satisfaction predictors related to the feelings about e-prescribing system efficiency was larger than those predictors related to the quality of patient care. Implications for practice These findings contribute to better understanding of how pharmacists and doctors perceive e-prescribing systems, and also have implications for system development, training, and how an e-prescribing system can be most effectively ‘marketed’ to different user groups.


Attitude CPOE Doctor E-prescribing system Pharmacist Physician Satisfaction United Kingdom 



We like to thank the healthcare professionals in all three hospitals for their support and participation in this study.


This study was financially supported by the Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences and School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences in the University of Manchester as part of Derar Abdel-Qader’s PhD studentship.

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Teich JM, Hurley JF, Beckley RF, Aranow M. Design of an easy-to-use physician order entry system with support for nursing and ancillary departments. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1992;16:99–103.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Teich JM, Merchia PR, Schmiz JL, Kuperman GJ, Spurr CD, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician order entry on prescribing practices. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(18):2741–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chin HL, Wallace P. Embedding guidelines into direct physician order entry: simple methods, powerful results. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999;1999:221–5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnston ME, Langton KB, Haynes RB, Mathieu A. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on clinician performance and patient outcome. A critical appraisal of research. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120(2):135–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Jha A, Teich JM, Orav EJ, Ma’Luf N, et al. Does the computerized display of charges affect inpatient ancillary test utilization? Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(21):2501–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Machan C, Siebert U. The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15(5):585–600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    NHS Connecting for Health (NHS CFH). Electronic prescribing in hospitals—challenges and lessons learned. Report commissioned by NHS Connecting for Health (NHS CFH), Leeds. 2009.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ash JS, Sittig DF, Dykstra R, Campbell E, Guappone K. The unintended consequences of computerized provider order entry: Findings from a mixed methods exploration. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78(Suppl 1):S69-76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sittig DF, Krall M, Kaalaas-Sittig J, Ash JS. Emotional aspects of computer-based provider order entry: a qualitative study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(5):561–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murff HJ, Kannry J. Physician satisfaction with two order entry systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8(5):499–509.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller RA, Gardner RM. Recommendations for responsible monitoring and regulation of clinical software systems. American medical informatics association, computer-based patient record institute, medical library association, association of academic health science libraries, American health information management association, American nurses association. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997;4(6):442–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee F, Teich JM, Spurr CD, Bates DW, Lee F, Teich JM, et al. Implementation of physician order entry: user satisfaction and self-reported usage patterns. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1996;3(1):42–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lindenauer PK, Ling D, Pekow PS, Crawford A, Naglieri-Prescod D, Hoople N, et al. Physician characteristics, attitudes, and use of computerized order entry. J Hosp Med. 2006;1(4):221–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pizzi LT, Suh DC, Barone J, Nash DB. Factors related to physicians’ adoption of electronic prescribing: results from a national survey. Am J Med Qual. 2005;20(1):22–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tierney WM, Overhage JM, McDonald CJ, Wolinsky FD. Medical students’ and housestaff’s opinions of computerized order-writing. Acad Med. 1994;69(5):386–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weiner M, Gress T, Thiemann DR, Jenckes M, Reel SL, Mandell SF, et al. Contrasting views of physicians and nurses about an inpatient computer-based provider order-entry system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6(3):234–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilson JP, Bulatao PT, Rascati KL, Wilson JP, Bulatao PT, Rascati KL. Satisfaction with a computerized practitioner order-entry system at two military health care facilities. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2000;57(23):2188–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ravnan MC, Ravnan SL, Manzo BA. Physician attitudes toward computerized medication order entry. ASHP Midyear Clinical Meeting, vol. 36(Dec). 2001. p. 385E.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shek C, Sittig DF, Kuperman GJ, Fanikos J, Seger DL. Pharmacists’ satisfaction with a physician order entry (POE) system. ASHP Midyear Clinical Meeting, vol. 34(Dec). 1999. p. 28R.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Snyder R, Fields W. Community hospital physician adoption of a CPOE system: perceptions of readiness, usefulness, and satisfaction. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceeding. 2007. p. 1117.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wess ML, Hegner C, Anderson PF, Thelen G, Embi PJ, Besier JL et al. Effect of a computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system on provider and nurse satisfaction at a community hospital and university hospital. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceeding. 2007. p. 1152.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reckmann MH, Westbrook JI, Koh Y, Lo C, Day RO. Does computerized provider order entry reduce prescribing errors for hospital inpatients? A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16:613–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Franklin BD, O’Grady K, Donyai P, Jacklin A, Barber N. The impact of a closed-loop electronic prescribing and administration system on prescribing errors, administration errors and staff time: a before-and-after study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16(4):279–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goundrey-Smith SJ. Electronic prescribing-experience in the UK and system design issues. Pharm J. 2006;277:485–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Andrews F, Withey S. Social indicators of well-being: American perceptions of life quality. New York: Putnam Press; 1976.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Westbrook R. A rating scale for measuring product/service satisfaction. J Mark. 1980;44:68–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cutler DM, Feldman NE, Horwitz JR. U.S. adoption of computerized physician order entry systems. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24(6):1654–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Massaro TA. Introducing physician order entry at a major academic medical center: II. Impact on medical education. Acad Med. 1993;68(1):25–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ghahramani N, Lendel I, Haque R, Sawruk K. User satisfaction with computerized order entry system and its effect on workplace level of stress. J Med Syst. 2009;33(3):199–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bates DW, Boyle DL, Teich JM. Impact of computerized physician order entry on physician time. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994; 996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sittig DF, Stead WW. Computer-based physician order entry: the state of the art. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994;1(2):108–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prochaska JO, Redding CA, Harlow LL, Rossi JS, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of change and HIV prevention: a review. Health Educ Q. 1994;21(4):471–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sviokla JJ. Managing a transformational technology: a field study of the introduction of profiling. Harvard business school working paper #93-059, (in press) 1995, (Available in: Implementing radical change: gradual versus rapid pace. Gallivan M. et al. 1994). Accessed 10 Mar 2010.
  34. 34.
    Quinn FB Jr, Hokanson JA, McCracken MM, Stiernberg CM. Dissemination of computer skills among physicians: the infectious process model. J Med Syst. 1984;8(4):307–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derar H. Abdel-Qader
    • 1
    Email author
  • Judith A. Cantrill
    • 1
  • Mary P. Tully
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations