Implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR) system increases efficiency of health services, quality of care and patient satisfaction. Successful implementation depends on many factors, one of which is how users respond to the new system. We studied medical receptionists' appraisal of the newly implemented EMR system in primary healthcare centres in Kuwait. Four hundred receptionists were selected randomly from different healthcare centres and asked to complete a user interaction satisfaction questionnaire relating to their experience of the new system. The response rate was 80.5%. A large majority of the respondents considered the system to be flexible (83%), easy (89%), and satisfying (81%). However, more than one third of the respondents (36%) found the system inadequate. Bivariate and multivariate analyses found age, typing ability, ease of data entry and computer error as significant correlates with overall user response. These findings relating to users' reactions to various aspects of the EMR should assist policymakers to recognise the causes of dissatisfaction with the EMR among medical receptionists at health centre clinics that may adversely affect its successful implementation and regular use, as well as the quality of care provided by the clinics. In addition, the findings provide information to assist the development of guidelines for future implementation of the EMR system at the secondary healthcare level.
AaronsonJ.W.Murphy-CullenC.L.ChopW.M.FreyR.D., (2001). Electronic medical records: The family practice resident perspective. Family Medicine33: 128–32.
2.
AartsJ.DoorewaardH.BergM. (2004). Understanding implementation: The case of a computerized physician order entry system in a large Dutch university medical center. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association11(3): 207–216.
3.
AlqurainiH.AlhashemA.M.ShahM.A.ChowdhuryR.I., (2007). Factors influencing nurses' attitudes towards the use of computerized health information systems in Kuwaiti hospitals. Journal of Advanced Nursing57(4): 375–381.
4.
AmmenwerthE.MansmannU.IllerC.EichstadterR. (2003). Factors affecting and affected by user acceptance of computer-based nursing documentation: Results of a two-year study. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association10(1): 69–84.
5.
AshJ.S.GormanP.N.SeshadriV.HershW.R., (2004). Computerized physician order entry in U.S. hospitals: Results of a 2002 survey. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association11(2): 95–103.
6.
BallM.J., (2003). Hospital information systems: Perspectives on problems and prospects, 1979 and 2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics69(2–3): 83–91.
7.
BensonT. (2002). Why general practitioners use computers and hospital physicians do not—Part 1: Incentives. British Medical Journal325(7372): 1086–1094.
8.
BergM.LangenbergC.vd BergI.KwakkernaatJ. (1998). Considerations for sociotechnical design: Experiences with an electronic patient record in a clinical context. International Journal of Medical Informatics52(1–3): 243–251.
9.
BergM. (1999). Patient care information systems and health care work: A sociotechnical approach. International Journal of Medical Informatics55(2): 87–101.
10.
ChangH.H.ChangC.S., (2008). An assessment of technology-based service encounters and network security on the e-health care systems of medical centers in Taiwan. BMC Health Services Research8: 1–13.
11.
CiminoJ.J.PatelV.L.KushnirukA.W., (2002). The patient clinical information system (PatCIS): Technical solutions for and experience with giving patients access to their electronic medical records. International Journal of Medical Informatics68: 113–127.
12.
DanskyK.H.GammL.D.VaseyJ.J.BarsukiewiczC.K., (1999). Electronic medical records: Are physicians ready?Journal of Healthcare Management44: 440–5.
13.
GilliesR.R.ChenokK.E.ShortellS.M.PawlsonG.WimbushJ.J., (2006). The impact of health plan delivery system organization on clinical quality and patient satisfaction. Health Services Research41: 1181–1199.
14.
GoldP.B.GlynnS.M.MueserK.T., (2006). Challenges to implementing and sustaining comprehensive mental health service programs. Evaluation and the Health Professions29: 195–218.
15.
HauxR. (2006). Health information systems—past, present, future. International Journal of Medical Informatics75: 268–281.
16.
LaerumH.KarlsenT.H.FaxvaagA. (2004). Use of and attitudes to a hospital information system by medical secretaries, nurses and physicians deprived of the paper-based medical record: A case report. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making4(18): 1–10.
17.
LikourezosA.ChalfinD.B.MurphyD.G.SommerB.DarcyK.DavidsonS.J., (2004). Physician and nurse satisfaction with an Electronic Medical Record system. The Journal of Emergency Medicine27(4): 419–424.
18.
LittlejohnsP.WyattJ.C.GarvicanL. (2003). Evaluating computerised health information systems: Hard lessons still to be learnt. British Medical Journal326(7394): 860–63.
19.
LiumJ.T.LerumH.SchulzT.FaxvaagA. (2006). From the front line, report from a near paperless hospital: Mixed reception among health care professionals. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association13(6): 668–675.
20.
LiumJ.T.TjoraA.FaxvaagA. (2008). No paper, but the same routines: A qualitative exploration of experiences in two Norwegian hospitals deprived of the paper based medical record. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making8(2): 1–12.
21.
LoomisG.A.RiesS.SaywellR.M.ThakkerN.R., (2002). If electronic medical records are so great, why aren't family physicians using them?The Journal of Family Practice51: 636–41.
22.
MarasovicC.KenneyC.ElliottD.SindhusakeD. (1997). Attitudes of Australian nurses toward the implementation of a clinical information system. Computers in Nursing15: 91–8.
23.
Ministry of Health. (2004). November Report. Department of Planning and Followup, Health Ministry Services, Kuwait.
24.
MurffH.J.KannryJ. (2001). Physician satisfaction with two order entry systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association8(5): 499–509.
25.
OtienoG.O.HinakoT.MotohiroA.DaisukeK.KeikoN. (2008). Measuring effectiveness of electronic medical records systems: Towards building a composite index for benchmarking hospitals. International Journal of Medical Informatics77(10): 657–669.
26.
PACI. (2007). Directory of population and labor force. Public Authority of Civil Information, Kuwait.
27.
PoissantL.PereiraJ.TamblynR.KawasumiY. (2005). The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association12(5): 505–16.
28.
ShardaP.DasA.K.CohenT.A.PatelV. (2006). Customizing clinical narratives for the electronic medical record interface using cognitive methods. International Journal of Medical Informatics75: 346–368.
29.
SimpsonG.KenrickM. (1997). Nurses' attitudes toward computerization in clinical practice in a British general hospital. Computers in Nursing15(1): 37–42.
30.
SittigD.F.KupermanG.J.FiskioJ. (1999). Evaluating physician satisfaction regarding user interactions with an electronic medical record system. Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium:. 400–404. Bethesda, Maryland USA American Medical Informatics Association.
31.
SouthonG.SauerC.DampneyK. (1999). Lessons from a failed information systems initiative: Issues for complex organizations. International Journal of Medical Informatics55(1): 33–46.
32.
Van der MeijdenM.J.TangeH.TroostJ.HasmanA. (2001). Development and implementation of an EPR: How to encourage the user. International Journal of Medical Informatics64(2–3): 173–85.
33.
Van Der MeijdenM.J.TangeH.J.TroostJ.HasmanA. (2003). Determinants of success of inpatient clinical information systems: A literature review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association10(3): 235–43.
34.
WangS.J.MiddletonB.PresserL.A.BardonC.G.SpurrC.D.CarchidiP.J.KittlerA.F.GoldszerR.C.FairchildD.G.SussmanA.J.KupermanG.J.BatesD.W., (2003). A cost-benefit analysis of electronic medical records in primary care. The American Journal of Medicine114(5): 397–403.
35.
YooS.K.KimD.K.KimJ.C.PartY.J.ChangB.C., (2008). Implementation of a large scale hospital information infrastructure for multi-unit health-care services. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare14(3): 164–6.
