Investigating factors influencing the use of clinical information systems can help to develop a strategy to improve user acceptance of a given system or similar ones in the future. In this research, we investigated factors influencing the use of information technology in the emergency department (ED). We undertook a qualitative study in which data were collected using semi-structured interviews with the ED staff. In total, 34 interviews were conducted and data were analysed using framework analysis. The results showed that user characteristics and perception of task, technology, environment, and impact of technology could influence people’s use of IT in the ED. Of these, the usefulness of the systems, the impact of technology, IT training, and the feasibility of using IT by all members of staff seemed to be the main concerns. Addressing these factors in designing and implementing a system could help to introduce the change successfully and improve the acceptance of information technology.
Berg M.Patient care information systems and health care work: a socio-technical approach . Int J Med Inform1999; 55 (2): 87-101.
2.
Kaplan B. and Shaw NTFuture directions in evaluation research: people, organisational, and social issues. Method Inform Med2004; 43 (3): 215-231.
3.
Herbst K., Littlejohns P., Rawlinson J., Collinson M., Wyatt JCEvaluating computerised health information systems: hardware, software and human ware: experiences from Northern Province, South Africa. J Public Health Med1999; 21 (3): 305-310.
4.
Ammenwerth E. , Iller C., Mahler C.IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology and individuals: a fit framework and a case study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2006; 6 (3).
5.
Sittig DF, Krall MA, Dykstra RH, Russell A., Chin HLA survey of factors affecting clinician acceptance of clinical decision support . BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2006; 6 (6).
6.
Ammenwerth E. and Shaw NTBad health informatics can kill: is evaluation the answer? Method Inform Med2005; 44 (1): 1-3.
7.
Ammenwerth E. , Mansmann U., Iller C., Eichstadter R.Factors affecting and affected by user acceptance of computer-based nursing documentation: results of a two-year study. J Am Med Inform Assn2003; 10 (1): 69-84.
8.
Travers DA and Downs SMComparing user acceptance of a computer system in two paediatric offices: a qualitative study. In: Overhage JM (ed.) AMIA 2000 annual symposium: converging information, technology, and health care, 2000, Los Angeles, p.858-862.
Despont-Gros C., Fabry P., Muller H., Geissbuhler A., Lovis C.User acceptance of clinical information systems: a methodological approach to identify the key dimensions allowing a reliable evaluation framework. Medinfo2004; 11 (Pt 2): 1038-1042.
11.
Dillon A. and Morris M.User acceptance of new information technology: theories and models. Annu Rev Inform Sci1996; 31: 3-32.
12.
Venkatesh V. , Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FDUser acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly2003; 27 (3): 425-478.
13.
Raitoharju R.When acceptance is not enough: taking TAM-model into healthcare. In: 38th International Conference on System Sciences, 2005, Hawaii, IEEE, p.150c.
14.
Mazzoleni MC, Baiardi P., Giorgi I., Franchi G., Cortesi M., Sozze F.Mutual involvement of information system, users and context: the influence on the acceptance of a hospital information system. In: Masys DR (ed.) AMIA 1997 annual fall symposium (formerly SCAMC): the emergence of internetable health care systems that really work, 1997, Nashville, p.972.
15.
Handy J., Hunter I., Whiddett R.User acceptance of inter-organizational electronic medical records. Health Inform J2001; 7 (June); 103-107.
16.
Despont-Gros C., Mueller H., Lovis C.Evaluating user interactions with clinical information system: a model based on human-computer interaction models. J Biomed Inform2005; 38 (3): 244-255.
17.
Hughes G.The four hour target; problems ahead. Emerg Med J2006; 23 (1): 2.
18.
Ritchie J. and Spencer E.Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG (eds) Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge, 1994, p.173-194.
19.
Jones MRComputers can land people on Mars, why can’t they get them to work in a hospital? Method Inform Med2003; 42 (4): 410-415.
20.
Aydin CE and Rice RESocial worlds, individual differences, and implementation: predicting attitudes toward a medical information system. Inform Man1991; 20 (5): 119-136.
21.
Tan E. and Yates KMUse of information technology in New Zealand emergency departments. Emerg Med Aust2007; 19 (6): 515-522.
22.
Davis FDUser acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, users’ perceptions, and behavioural impact. Int J Man-Mach1993; 38 (3): 475-487.
23.
Henderson RD and Deane FPUser expectations and perceptions of a patient management information system . Comput Nurs1996; 14 (3): 188-193.
24.
Ayatollahi H. , Bath PA, Goodacre S.IT in the emergency department: what is the impact of technology? In: Azevedo L, Londral AR (eds) Health Inf J2009, Porto, Portugal, 2009, p.454-457.
25.
Hu S., Yen DHT, Kao W.The feasibility of full computerization in the ED. Amer J Emerg Med2002; 20 (2): 118-121.
26.
Ayatollahi H., Bath PA, Goodacre S.Paper-based versus computer-based records in the emergency department: staff preferences, expectations, and concerns . Health Inf J15(3): 199-211.
27.
Ash JS, Fournier L., Stavri PZ, Dykstra R.Principles for a successful computerized physician order entry (CPOE) implementation . In: Biomedical and health informatics: from foundations to applications, AMIA 2003 annual symposium, Washington, DC , 2003, p.36-40.
28.
Ward R., Stevens C., Brentnall P., Briddon J.The attitudes of health care staff to information technology: a comprehensive review of the research literature. Health Info Libr J2008; 25 (2): 81-97.
29.
Devitt N. and Murphy J.A survey of the information management and technology training needs of doctors in an acute NHS trust in the United Kingdom. Health Info Libr J2004; 21 (3): 164-172.
