University College London, England.
Milbank Q. 2009 Dec;87(4):729-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00578.x.
The extensive research literature on electronic patient records (EPRs) presents challenges to systematic reviewers because it covers multiple research traditions with different underlying philosophical assumptions and methodological approaches.
Using the meta-narrative method and searching beyond the Medline-indexed literature, this review used "conflicting" findings to address higher-order questions about how researchers had differently conceptualized and studied the EPR and its implementation.
Twenty-four previous systematic reviews and ninety-four further primary studies were considered. Key tensions in the literature centered on (1) the EPR ("container" or "itinerary"); (2) the EPR user ("information-processer" or "member of socio-technical network"); (3) organizational context ("the setting within which the EPR is implemented" or "the EPR-in-use"); (4) clinical work ("decision making" or "situated practice"); (5) the process of change ("the logic of determinism" or "the logic of opposition"); (6) implementation success ("objectively defined" or "socially negotiated"); and (7) complexity and scale ("the bigger the better" or "small is beautiful").
The findings suggest that EPR use will always require human input to recontextualize knowledge; that even though secondary work (audit, research, billing) may be made more efficient by the EPR, primary clinical work may be made less efficient; that paper may offer a unique degree of ecological flexibility; and that smaller EPR systems may sometimes be more efficient and effective than larger ones. We suggest an agenda for further research.
电子病历(EPR)的广泛研究文献给系统评价者带来了挑战,因为它涵盖了具有不同潜在哲学假设和方法学方法的多种研究传统。
使用元叙述方法并超越 Medline 索引文献进行搜索,本综述利用“冲突”的发现来解决关于研究人员如何以不同的方式概念化和研究 EPR 及其实施的更高阶问题。
考虑了 24 项先前的系统评价和 94 项进一步的主要研究。文献中的关键紧张局势集中在(1)EPR(“容器”或“行程”);(2)EPR 用户(“信息处理者”或“社会技术网络成员”);(3)组织背景(“EPR 实施的环境”或“正在使用的 EPR”);(4)临床工作(“决策”或“情境实践”);(5)变革过程(“决定论的逻辑”或“对立的逻辑”);(6)实施成功(“客观定义”或“社会协商”);以及(7)复杂性和规模(“越大越好”或“小巧玲珑”)。
研究结果表明,EPR 的使用将始终需要人工输入来重新语境化知识;尽管 EPR 可能使二次工作(审核、研究、计费)更有效率,但主要临床工作的效率可能会降低;纸质可能提供独特的生态灵活性;并且较小的 EPR 系统有时可能比更大的系统更有效率和有效。我们建议进一步研究的议程。