User Experiences and Satisfaction with an Electronic Health Record System

  • Berglind Fjola SmaradottirEmail author
  • Rune Werner Fensli
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 972)


Electronic health records have a crucial role for communication and information management in health care organizations. Electronic health records have improved the access to up-dated medical information at the point-of-care, but they have also been linked to usability issues and user problems. This paper presents a study about the user experience among health care professionals regarding an electronic health record system in Norway. Qualitative research methods were used, with interviews and observations made at a university hospital, where 14 clinical end-users of an electronic health record system contributed. The aim was to study the user experiences and the user satisfaction regarding the system. The study concluded that the health care professionals in general were satisfied with the system, but they had to make some work arounds to efficiently carry out care in their daily work practice.


User experience User studies Electronic health records Information systems 



The authors thank the informants of the study for their disinterested contribution. Special thanks to the Head of the hospital departments for collaboration in the organization of the data collection. Financial support was provided by the Faculty of Engineering and Science at the University of Agder in Norway through grant number 53965 and from the research project 3P- Patients and Professionals in Productive Teams with grant number 243857 from Helseforsk [23, 24].


  1. 1.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
  2. 2.
    Shortliffe, E.H., Cimino, J.J.: Biomedical Informatics: Computer Applications in Health Care and Biomedicine, 4th edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coiera, E.: Guide to Health Informatics, 3rd edn. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Menachemi, N., Taleah, H.C.: Benefits and drawbacks of electronic health record systems. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 4, 47–55 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Norwegian Directorate of eHealth, National E-health strategy and goals 2017-2022.
  6. 6.
    Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services, One citizen- one health record, Report N. 9. (2012-2013) to the Storting (white paper).
  7. 7.
    Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services, The Coordination Reform: Proper treatment – at the right place and right time, Report No. 47 (2008-2009) to the Storting.
  8. 8.
    Norwegian Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Health Records Act 2016 (Pasientjournalloven).
  9. 9.
    Edwards, P.J., Moloney, K.P., Jacko, J.A., Sainfort, F.: Evaluating usability of a commercial electronic health record: a case study. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 66(10), 718–728 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zahabi, M., Kaber, D.B., Swangnetr, M.: Usability and safety in electronic medical records interface design: a review of recent literature and guideline formulation. Hum. Factors 57(5), 805–834 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stanziola, E., Uznayo, M.Q., Ortiz, J.M., Simón, M., Otero, C., Campos, F., Luna, D.: User-centered design of health care software development: towards a cultural change. Stud. Health Tech. Inform. 216, 368–371 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Faxvaag, A., Johansen, T.S., Heimly, V., Melby, L., Grimsmo, A.: Healthcare professionals’ experiences with EHR-system access control mechanisms. Stud. Health Tech. Inform. 169, 601–605 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martinez, S., Smaradottir, B., Vatnøy, T., Bjønness, M.: Usability evaluation of a geolocation technology: safemate. In: 22nd IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications, pp. 187–192. IEEE Press, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Borycki, E.M., Kushniruk, A.W., Bellwood, P., Brender, J.: Technology-induced errors. Methods Inf. Med. 51(02), 95–103 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Borycki, E.M.: Technology-induced errors: where do they come from and what can we do about them. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 194, 20–26 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schumacher, R.M., Lowry, S.Z.: NIST guide to the processes approach for improving the usability of electronic health records. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, Newcastle upon Tyne (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morse, J.M., Field, P.A.: Qualitative Research Methods for Health Professionals. Sage, Newcastle upon Tyne (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The Norwegian Centre for Research Data.
  20. 20.
    Smaradottir, B.F.: Patient accessible electronic health records: impacts on nursing documentation practices at a university hospital. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 250, 14–18 (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Norwegian National Health Portal.
  22. 22.
    Smaradottir, B.F., Fensli, R.W.: Evaluation of technology use in an inter-disciplinary patient-centered health care team. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 257, 388–392 (2019)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Norwegian Centre for E-health Research. Patients and Professionals in Productive Teams (3P).
  24. 24.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Berglind Fjola Smaradottir
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Rune Werner Fensli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information and Communication Technology, Faculty of Engineering and ScienceUniversity of AgderKristiansandNorway
  2. 2.Research DepartmentSørlandet HospitalKristiansandNorway

Personalised recommendations