Successfully implementing a national electronic health record: a rapid umbrella review

1 Present address: Irish Centre for High End Computing (ICHEC), National University of Galway, Ireland.

Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

Abstract

Aim

To summarize the findings from literature reviews with a view to identifying and exploring the key factors which impact on the success of an EHR implementation across different healthcare contexts.

Introduction

Despite the widely recognised benefits of electronic health records (EHRs), their full potential has not always been achieved, often as a consequence of the implementation process. As more countries launch national EHR programmes, it is critical that the most up-to-date and relevant international learnings are shared with key stakeholders.

Methods

A rapid umbrella review was undertaken in collaboration with a multidisciplinary panel of knowledge-users and experts from Ireland. A comprehensive literature review was completed (2019) across several search engines (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, ProQuest, Cochrane) and Gray literature. Identified studies (n = 5,040) were subject to eligibility criterion and identified barriers and facilitators were analysed, reviewed, discussed and interpreted by the expert panel.

Results

Twenty-seven literature reviews were identified which captured the key organizational, human and technological factors for a successful EHR implementation according to various stakeholders across different settings. Although the size, type and culture of the healthcare setting impacted on the organizational factors, each was deemed important for EHR success; Governance, leadership and culture, End-user involvement, Training, Support, Resourcing, and Workflows. As well as organizational differences, individual end-users have varying Skills and characteristics, Perceived benefits and incentives, and Perceived changes to the health ecosystem which were also critical to success. Finally, the success of the EHR technology depended on Usability, Interoperability, Adaptability, Infrastructure, Regulation, standards and policies, and Testing.

Conclusion

Fifteen inter-linked organizational, human and technological factors emerged as important for successful EHR implementations across primary, secondary and long-term care settings. In determining how to employ these factors, the local context, individual end-users and advancing technology must also be considered.

1. Introduction

Capturing and effectively using clinical information and knowledge to ensure a quality, safe and sustainable healthcare service is widely recognised as important [1,2] and data from electronic health records (EHRs) have been vital to decision-making on public health policies during the COVID-19 pandemic [3]. An EHR provides a longitudinal record of information regarding the health status of an individual in computer-processible form across practices and specialists, and enables authorised access to clinical records in real-time [4,5]. As well as expanding the capacity to utilise clinical data for monitoring of patient outcomes and conducting audits and research [6,7], the EHR provides access to patient information in a timely manner, enabling healthcare professionals (HCPs) to spend more time with patients 8 , reducing duplication of tests and work, and improving the safety and quality of care provided [4,7,[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]]. Additionally, integration of other functions and software, such as clinical decision support and bar code medication administration, further expand its potential benefits [15,16].

Electronic patient records (EPRs) or electronic medical records (EMRs) also offer many of these benefits but solely contain the records from an individual organization. Whilst shared or summary care records and patient portals respectively store and facilitate access to specific patient information required by HCPs [17] and patients [18]. Despite the number of benefits which can be derived from these systems, challenges have been met in implementing a fully interoperable EHR between primary and secondary care [13,19], often attributed to the implementation process as opposed to the product supplied by the EHR vendor [20,21]. Therefore, the implementation process is critical [22] and must be considered as an ongoing process beginning during procurement and continuing throughout each phase of design, development, testing, ‘Go Live’ and optimization.

Whilst hospital information systems (HIS) in the USA have been in existence since the 1960s [23], HIS are a more recent phenomenon in the Republic of Ireland where public healthcare is managed by the Health Service Executive (HSE) which co-exists with a private health system. The Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) has overall responsibility for embedding technology within the health infrastructure [24] and to date, EPRs have been implemented in some individual private and public hospitals and the majority of general practitioner (GP) offices (i.e., private primary care physicians often with HSE contracts), as well as for specific cohorts of patients (e.g., maternal and newborn, and epilepsy) [25]. However, many other hospitals and HSE primary care (i.e., community) centres remain largely paper-based. With an EHR in the pipeline [24,26], three national projects have been planned by eHealth Ireland which is led by the Office of the CIO; Acute EHR, Community EHR and the Shared and Integrated Care Record. Therefore, this is an opportune time for policy-makers and other key stakeholders to review the learnings from the implementations of health information technology (HIT) both in Ireland and internationally.

However, a vast amount of literature is published on topics such as EHRs which renders it difficult for policy-makers to remain up-to-date [27,28], perhaps amplifying the “know-do” gap. Additionally, healthcare is a complex and adaptive system which needs to be recognized and acknowledged when attempting to replicate successes in another context [29]. The EHR programme in Ireland is also already underway and therefore, it’s critical that knowledge is generated to provide actionable and relevant key considerations in a timely manner aligned with the policy and decision-making cycles [30]. Therefore, the aim of this review is to identify and explore the key factors which promote a successful EHR implementation across healthcare settings, with active collaboration from key stakeholders in the Irish context.

2. Methods

2.1. Design

A rapid umbrella review was conducted and guided by the World Health Organisation (WHO) practical guide for Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems [31]. Unlike a systematic review, an umbrella review also known as a review of reviews, compiles evidence from several research syntheses across different healthcare contexts and stakeholder groups [32,33]. Active collaboration with an expert panel of knowledge users facilitated the acceleration of the systematic review process [30] and to facilitate uptake and use of these findings by planners and decision-makers, the synthesized findings were also presented in a report format [34].

2.2. Expert panel of knowledge users

A multi-disciplinary panel of experts and knowledge users (n = 10) were engaged and involved throughout the review process to inform its methodology, validate the generalizability and relevance of the review findings [35], and ensure it reflects current thinking and is useful [27]. The panel was convened in January 2019 by the Office of Nursing and Midwifery Services Director (HSE) and comprised of those currently involved in large HIT implementation projects across primary and secondary care at local and national levels in Ireland, as well as clinicians, health service researchers and academic partners from healthcare and health informatic backgrounds ( Table 1 ). Five consultative in-person group meetings and several individual meetings and email exchanges within the group were conducted throughout the review process.

Table 1

Positions held by the members of the Expert Panel (n = 10).

Note: Some members of the expert panel had more than one position. Health Service Executive (HSE), government-funded organisation responsible for the provision of health and personal social services; UCD, University College Dublin; Ireland East Hospital Group, one of seven hospital groups in Ireland comprising of 11 hospitals and four community healthcare organisations; ICT, Information Communication Technology; Maternal and Newborn Clinical Management System (MN-CMS), an EHR for all women and babies being cared for across maternity and new born services in Ireland; GPIT, General Practice Information Technology; EPR, Electronic Patient Record.

2.3. Research question and search strategy

An initial exploratory scope of the EHR literature in the PubMed database was reviewed by the expert panel and the final research question, methodology and search strategy were developed and agreed. A large number of search terms to describe “Electronic Health Record”, “Implementation” and “Literature Review” were identified from previous systematic reviews [7,[36], [37], [38], [39], [40]], additional literature [17], medical subject heading and controlled vocabulary and via consultation with the expert panel and an experienced information technologist at the Health Sciences Library, UCD [Appendix]. The search string was tailored to the indexing language of each database and in March 2019, it was executed across PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, ProQuest and Cochrane, with limitations of English language and published since 2010. Grey literature including reports and conference proceedings were also searched (international Health Informatics Societies, the World Health Organization (WHO), European e-health network, Kings Fund, Gartner and Lenus). Panellists also drew on their expertise to identify any additional relevant sources [35].

2.4. Identification of literature reviews

Identified articles were calibrated in the citation management software Endnote version x9.2 and titles and abstracts were screened by one researcher using the inclusion and exclusion criteria agreed with the expert panel ( Table 2 ). Full text articles were then accessed and screened by the same researcher, with any doubts regarding inclusion or exclusion discussed with the panel to overcome any risk of errors or inconsistencies associated with using one reviewer [31]. In line with our chosen rapid review methodology, a quality assessment of identified reviews was not conducted.

Table 2

Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of identified literature reviews.

2.5. Data extraction and synthesis

A standardized data extraction form was developed and included authors, year of publication, study design, participants, healthcare setting, included studies and findings related to factors impacting on the implementation (i.e., themes and/or paragraphs as required). Following data extraction, a qualitative content analysis of the factors impacting on the EHR implementation was undertaken by the researcher [41]. Using an iterative process, a list of codes representing the identified factors from each of the literature reviews was formed [42]. The expert panel reviewed these codes via an adapted nominal group technique, which saw collated appraisals distributed amongst the panellists [43] to assess whether they were comprehensive of the literature and their own experiences, and to determine whether the findings could be transferred to Irish contexts and settings [42]. Having reached a final consensus regarding the factors for a successful EHR implementation, these factors were further categorized into a theoretical framework [10] and resulted in the generation of key considerations [42].

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of literature reviews

Of the 5,040 articles retrieved, 27 literature reviews were identified which captured factors deemed important for the successful implementation of EHRs, as well as other HIT implementations ( Fig. 1 ). Fifteen were classified as systematic reviews, whilst the others were umbrella reviews (n = 3), scoping reviews (n = 2), interpretive review (n = 1), literature review with a meta-narrative (n = 1) and other non-systematic literature reviews (n = 5). Overlap in included publications existed across the literature reviews with 974 unique studies, literature reviews, reports, books and guidelines identified. Perspectives of a variety of stakeholders were captured in these reviews including GPs (or primary care physicians), other doctors, nurses, health and social care professionals (HCPs), patients, policymakers, vendors and IT consultants ( Table 3 ). Although many literature reviews encompassed studies from a variety of healthcare settings, others were specific to primary care (i.e., community) [13,44,45], long term care [46] and mental health settings [47] or within specific countries or groups of countries [19,[48], [49], [50], [51]].

PRISMA Flow Diagram.

Table 3

Identified literature reviews which reviewed the key factors for a successful EHR implementation.

Note: EHR, Electronic health record; LTC, long-term care; HIT, Health Information Technology; OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; EFTA, European Free Trade Association; HCPs, Health and Social Care Professionals.

3.2. Synthesized findings

Fifteen common factors were identified and classified as organizational, human and technological. Each of these factors are discussed in detail below as well as how they interact within different contexts.

3.2.1. Organizational factors

Factors relating to the processes by which the EHR was introduced and incorporated into routine care were categorized as organizational [54]. Whilst each of the six factors were important across all contexts, the size and type of organization impacted on how each triggered success during the EHR implementation [46,53,61].

3.2.1.1. Governance, leadership and culture

The governance of the EHR implementation [13,19,37], as well as leaders [7,10,36,44,48,[52], [53], [54],62,63] and organizational culture, were identified as paramount in ensuring a successful EHR system [7,10,13,36,45,[50], [51], [52], [53],56,59,62]. Whilst top-down, middle-out and bottom-up governance structures have been utilised, ongoing political willingness, national policies and some independence at an individual organizational level regarding EHR procurement, development and design, were recommended to promote engagement, usability and interoperability [13,48,51,62]. It was also important that executive leaders such as CIOs and project management teams establish good and trusting relationships with vendors and consulting firms [12,44,52,56,63], and designed the implementation strategy with clear measurable objectives [10,50,52], a fitting implementation process (e.g., big-bang or phased) [44,46,51,58], and clear roles and divisions of labour [10,60]. A shift away from the dominance of top and middle management has also been recommended [10,19,36], with the appointment of local leaders or champions, and supporting of internal and external communication and collaboration [10,11,19,52,59], innovation and continual improvement [52], and patient-centred care [19]. This also helps to create a favourable [10,36,44,63] and flexible [52] culture.

3.2.1.2. End-user involvement

During each stage of the EHR implementation process, end-user involvement was highlighted as important [7,10,37,47,48,52,54,56,57,60,62,63], as it helps to ensure that the EHR meets end-users’ needs and workflows, as well as promoting a sense of ownership [37] and acceptance amongst staff [10,37,63]. Engaging end-users from each stakeholder group was recommended [36], and this has often been done in the form of appointing champions. These leaders should be respected amongst their colleagues as well as having the relevant knowledge to act as a bridge between the end-users and IT staff [60,62,63]. However, champions may sometimes need to be shared between organizations [10].

3.2.1.3. Training

Basic computer and EHR-specific training were identified as key to a successful EHR implementation [7,10,12,13,19,36,37,45,46,48,[50], [51], [52], [53],56,57,60,61,63]. However, the effectiveness and resource-efficiency of training depended on the appropriateness of the appointed trainers, training content, timing of training (i.e., as close to Go Live as possible [36]) and methods of training e.g., classroom based versus eLearning [57]. EHR training was also recommended on an ongoing basis for new staff, as well as existing staff to optimize their use of the system [37,53].

3.2.1.4. Support

Expert, technical, executive and external support have been critical to successful EHR implementations [7,[10], [11], [12], [13],19,36,37,44,[50], [51], [52], [53],[56], [57], [58],[60], [61], [62], [63]]. Expert or peer support, often referred to as super-users, reportedly helped end-users to optimize their use of the EHR [7,11,12,36,53], whereas technical support staff helped solve IT issues [51,62]. During Go Live (often first 3-4 weeks [37]), technical and peer support should be available 24/7 seven days a week in hospitals [12,36]. However, this may not be feasible or required in primary care centres but channels to obtain support during working hours remain important. Other crucial support comes from an executive or policy level [19,50,52,53,56,57,60,63] and professional networks or external parties [19,53]. Although maintenance support for servers and networks was not as evidenced in the identified literature [50], the expert panel also deemed this as important.

3.2.1.5. Resourcing

The availability of resources in terms of finance, skilled workforce and time was also important [7,10,12,13,36,37,[44], [45], [46],48,49,[51], [52], [53], [54],56,[59], [60], [61], [62], [63]]. Financial resourcing was often highlighted as a barrier especially by primary care doctors [12,13] and those in lower income countries [48], and scope creep of the budget was a common occurrence for larger hospitals [10,52,54]. Therefore, a cost analysis which encompasses infrastructure, personnel, maintenance and ongoing optimization was critical [36,62]. Having a skilled workforce in-house who understand the clinical workflows was also recommended [53,61] as it can reduce dependence on and cost of vendors [12,36]. However, this may not be feasible for smaller organizations, and larger organizations also reportedly had issues with IT staff retention [10,13,36,48,51]. Adequate time for end-user involvement and habituation to the EHR was also vital [7,10,12] to ensure organizational readiness [7,13,51,53].

3.2.1.6. Workflows

Inability of the EHR system to meet the workflows of end-users and organizations was commonly cited as negatively impacting on success [7,[10], [11], [12],36,37,51,52,54,56,62,63], including end-user efficiency, productivity, satisfaction and acceptance of the EHR [7,11,63]. Although replicating existing paper-based practices may minimize disruptions for end-users [7,13,19,62], re-engineering of workflows during digitization to make them safer and more efficient was recommended [19,62,63].

3.2.2. Human factors

Ability of healthcare organizations to successfully adopt an EHR system was largely determined by the individual end-users [10,54], and three overarching human factors were identified.

3.2.2.1. Skills and characteristics

IT skills as well as personal characteristics of individuals impacted on the success of an EHR implementation [10,12,50,51,53,56,58,60,62,13,19,36,37,44,[47], [48], [49]]. Assessing computer literacy of end-users enabled provision of basic computer training to those requiring it, prior to effective EHR training [36,48]. Whilst the research assessing the impact of age, gender and clinical experience on acceptance of the EHR reported in the identified reviews was inconclusive, personal traits such as being open-to-change and a problem-solver appeared to contribute to success [56,62]. However, resistance to embracing the EHR could also be attributed to unusable technology [10,51].

3.2.2.2. Perceived benefits and incentives

Where individual end-users perceived the EHR to positively impact on patient care and workload, this reportedly facilitated a successful implementation [10,12,50,51,56,58,60,13,19,36,37,44,[47], [48], [49]]. However, realistic benefits and timeframes specific to the organization should be communicated with end-users [44,45,62]. Monetary incentives or penalties have also been shown to be important, especially for privately-governed organizations [13,45,59].

3.2.2.3. Perceived changes to the healthcare ecosystem

End-users’ concerns with changes to data privacy and security, patient-clinician relationships and their roles and responsibilities, appeared to negatively impact on EHR implementations [7,10,51,53,56,58,[60], [61], [62],12,13,19,36,44,[47], [48], [49]]. These concerns may differ depending on the specific setting and type of sensitive personal information being collected (e.g., mental health) [47]. Therefore, specific concerns and their causes of concerns should be identified and addressed as soon as possible to mitigate their impact on EHR implementations [19,36].

3.2.3. Technological factors

Six factors relating to the technology aspect of the EHR implementation were identified as critical to its success and were intrinsically linked to the organizational and human factors.

3.2.3.1. Usability

EHR usability was deemed important across several reviews [7,10,11,13,36,37,44,46,47,49,51,52,54,58,60,62], as it impacted on end-user efficiency, patient-facing time [12,13,37,53], quality of care [12], patient-clinician relationships [52] and safety [37]. However, a simple and intuitive system in one setting may not be transferrable to another, and therefore, end-user involvement in development, design [10,37,62] and usability testing were recommended at each site [37]. Additionally, enabling personalization of the EHR interface [53] and access to legacy paper-based records [50,51] as well as consideration of data quality and accuracy [13,44,51] with use of health terminologies and classifications [56] was recommended. However, usability needs to be balanced with security [44].

3.2.3.2. Interoperability

To enable health information exchange both within and across healthcare organizations, interoperability was identified as critical [7,[10], [11], [12], [13],19,37,44,45,[49], [50], [51], [52],54,58,60,62]. Local contextual factors within countries such as two tier and fully private health systems, lack of employment of national standards [45,53,62], inconsistent data capture in incompatible formats [12], have rendered the creation of a fully interoperable EHR as difficult. Therefore, technical standards and communication between organizations were recommended to ensure interoperability was built in from the outset including for legacy and existing health IT systems [7].

3.2.3.3. Infrastructure

Procurement or enhancement of infrastructure, including software (e.g., EHR, anti-viral), hardware (e.g., data-entry devices, Wi-Fi, power outlets) and furniture, accounted for a large proportion of the financial resourcing and were deemed critical for the success of the overall EHR implementation [10,12,56,62,63,36,[47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]]. The existing and new hardware and software must be compatible with the specific EHR product 45 , reliable and functional [13,36,44,53,56], and enable sufficient accessibility to the EHR for end-users [36,45,52,56]. According to the expert panel and additional literature reviewed, selection of mobile and stationary data-entry devices also require consideration of vendor certification, healthcare setting (e.g., outpatients versus isolation rooms), required functions and workflows (e.g., checklists versus long narrative notes), and end-user preferences for usability.

3.2.3.4. Regulation, standards and policies

As stated earlier, national and international standards as well as regulation and policies were critical for interoperability and addressing privacy and security concerns [7,13,19,45,46,51,52,56,58,60,62,63]. Therefore, messaging and language standards [45,52,56], as well as robust privacy laws and policies [13,44,52,56,62] were recommended. Where healthcare organizations were permitted to procure their own EHR product, these standards would likely be especially important.

3.2.3.5. Adaptability

Many of the literature reviews reported that adaptability of the software was important to facilitate customization of the EHR software to meet the needs of the end-users and organizations [10,36,37,50,51,53,54,62]. This reportedly required the software vendors to be open to sharing code development data and willing to adapt their product [36,37,53], and the organization to have access to a skilled workforce with the capabilities to adapt the EHR to clinical workflows [37]. Where interoperability standards exist, the need for adaptations to the software may be reduced [37].

3.2.3.6. Testing

Comprehensive testing of the system was critical to ensure usability and safety [7,10,37,54], and was more commonly cited as important by IT staff and management than by HCPs [7]. This rigorous, resource-intensive, multi-step testing process of each EHR function needed to be conducted within live environments with actual end-users [54] and should not be underestimated.

4. Discussion

This umbrella review distilled the large volume of evidence available regarding the successful implementation of a national EHR and these findings were corroborated by an expert panel as being relevant to the Irish healthcare context. Fifteen key organizational, human and technological factors were identified as critical and by synthesizing the findings from several stakeholder groups and clinical settings, such as doctors in primary or secondary care [11,13,45,53,58,61] and nurses in a mental health setting [47], this review of reviews identified that each of these factors were also relevant and important to EHR and other HIT implementations across different healthcare contexts.

However, between country differences including health service management, politics, economics, regulation and socio-culture impact on how the identified factors influence success. This was evident in the literature reviews which largely focused on studies conducted in the predominantly private health service in the USA where return on investment and productivity were perceived benefits and incentives of EHRs or EMRs [50,51,56]. Additionally whilst the governance approach was identified as important, a successful approach in one country cannot necessarily be replicated in another, as occurred in the UK where the top-down approach successfully employed in the Netherlands resulted in disengaged healthcare organizations across the UK [22]. Therefore, these factors need to be employed with consideration of the national context and in the Republic of Ireland this will also require close collaboration and communication across the co-existing public and private health sectors [64,65], as well as with those in Northern Ireland (UK). Additionally, European Union (EU) citizens may avail of healthcare from any member state under the Cross-Border Healthcare Directive (2011/24/EU) and thus, efficient exchange of health data across borders is a major priority [66] and is a pillar of EU4Health 2021-2027 [67]. Therefore, the EU interoperability policies and frameworks [14] as well as standards such as the International Patient Summary, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and standardised terminologies [4] to support these frameworks need to be employed.

Despite the expansion in internationally-recognised standards (e.g., HL7 FHIR) and significant regulatory and financial incentives created by the HITECH Act and “Meaningful Use” requirements in the USA, factors such as Usability and Regulations, standards and policies continue to be highlighted as important for success as opposed to being assumed components of EHR products. Whilst the inclusion of older studies by these reviews perhaps contributed to this, it is also likely that standards and requirements alone will not ensure an interoperable and usable EHR. In fact, it is the dynamic interaction between each of the identified factors which promotes a successful EHR [68]. However, placing more emphasis on an individual factor can reduce the resources required for others. For example, promoting Usability and Standards can respectively reduce the burden of training and support, as well as adaptability [37]. Additionally, this may be achieved by advances in evidence and technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) including automated testing [69], eLearning modules [70,71], and personalization of the EHR interface [72]. Therefore, it is recommended that those involved in each aspect of the implementation process communicate throughout it and review the latest evidence regarding technology including peer-reviewed publications and white papers.

At a more local or meso level, the size of the organization, infrastructure, organizational readiness and culture, capabilities and beliefs of the workforce, and available finance [36,37], were also identified as important when considering the application of the identified factors. Certain aspects of the internal context can also be enhanced to improve the likelihood of EHR success such as employing change management to create a clear and realistic vision of the EHR [73] and providing basic computer training [36,48]. However, the size of the organization and its workforce will likely remain more limited compared to their larger counterparts [10,37]. Therefore, sharing of resources such as champions, support staff and trainers between larger and smaller hospitals or primary care settings has been recommended, with some countries creating networks or encouraging collaboration between existing regional groups of healthcare organizations [73,74].

4.1. Strengths and Limitations

Undertaking a rapid qualitative evidence synthesis requires acceleration of many of the research processes, is dependent on the reporting in the original reviews [32] and could risk losing the context and complexity of the original research setting [32,42,75]. Additionally, five of the literature reviews were conducted by the same lead author which could lead to bias of individual study inclusion. However, the inclusion of literature reviews, consideration of the inclusion criteria of each literature review and ongoing collaboration with an expert panel [30], provided a degree of confidence regarding the coherence, relevance and adequacy of the findings and their generalisability across healthcare settings [76]. Additionally, actively involving knowledge-users who were undertaking HIT implementations led to the concurrent translation of this knowledge into practice [77].

5. Conclusion

The key organizational, human and technological factors identified in this review provide policy-makers and other key stakeholders with a foundation for making evidence-based decisions during the implementation of a fully interoperable EHR across primary, secondary and long-term care. However, consideration of the specific contextual influences is critical to the successful application of these factors. Additionally, the end-users, existing technological standards and policies, and advances in technology and research in the area, will impact on how these factors dynamically interact during the EHR implementation and will influence success.

Summary points

What was already known on the topic:

Despite recognition of the huge potential for EHRs to improve the delivery of healthcare, huge challenges have been met in implementing a fully interoperable EHR across acute and community care.

The implementation process of EHRs is critical to their success and needs to be carefully planned and considered across the complex and adapting healthcare landscape.

A vast amount of literature exists on EHRs which has been relevant to specific stakeholder groups and healthcare contexts.

What this study adds:

A comprehensive and clear overview of factors influencing the success of an EHR implementation across primary, secondary and long term care and different stakeholder groups is presented.

Validation of these factors for the Irish healthcare context via co-production and transfer of knowledge with key knowledge-users.

Generation of key considerations for each of these factors for policy-makers and other knowledge-users.

Funding

This work was supported by the Office of the Nursing and Midwifery Services Director, Health Service Executive (HSE), Ireland.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors report no declarations of interest.

Acknowledgements

The panel of experts and knowledge users who gave their time and expertise as well as other contributors from the HSE.

Appendix A. Search Strategy

References

1. eHealth Ireland. Electronic Health Record. https://www.ehealthireland.ie/Strategic-Programmes/Electronic-Health-Record-EHR-/. Published 2019. Accessed June 15, 2019.

2. Gartner . 2019. Healthcare EHR and Digital Care Delivery Optimization Primer for 2019. [Google Scholar]

3. Williamson E., Walker A., Bhaskaran K., Bacon S Bates, Morton Caroline E, Curtis Helen J, Mehrkar Amir, Evans David, Inglesby Peter, Cockburn Jonathan, Mcdonald Helen I, MacKenna Brian, Tomlinson Laurie, VOPG I. OpenSAFELY: factors associated with COVID-19-related hospital death in the linked electronic health records of 17 million adult NHS patients. J Chem Inf Model. 2020; 53 (9):1689–1699. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

4. Health Information Quality Authority (HIQA) 2011. Developing National EHealth Interoperability Standards for Ireland: A Consultation Document.https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2017-01/eHealth-Interoperability-Consultation.pdf [Google Scholar]

6. Kouroubali A., Katehakis D.G. The new European interoperability framework as a facilitator of digital transformation for citizen empowerment. J Biomed Inform. 2019; 94 doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103166. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Nguyen L., Bellucci E., Nguyen L.T. Electronic health records implementation: an evaluation of information system impact and contingency factors. Int J Med Inform. 2014; 83 (11):779–796. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.06.011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Warraich H.J., Califf R.M., Krumholz H.M. The digital transformation of medicine can revitalize the patient-clinician relationship. npj Digit Med. 2018; 1 (1):6–8. doi: 10.1038/s41746-018-0060-2. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Carnicero J., Rojas D. Lessons learned from implementation of information and communication technologies in Spain’s healthcare services: Issues and opportunities. Appl Clin Inform. 2010; 1 (4):363–376. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2010-07-CR-0041. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Sligo J., Gauld R., Roberts V., Villa L. A literature review for large-scale health information system project planning, implementation and evaluation. Int J Med Inform. 2017; 97 :86–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.09.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Castillo V.H., Martinez-Garcia A.I., Pulido J.R.G. A knowledge-based taxonomy of critical factors for adopting electronic health record systems by physicians: a systematic literature review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010; 10 :60. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-10-60. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Ajami S., Bagheri-Tadi T. Barriers for adopting electronic health records (EHRs) by physicians. Acta Inform Medica. 2013; 21 (2):129–134. doi: 10.5455/aim.2013.21.129-134. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. O’Donnell A., Kaner E., Shaw C., Haighton C. Primary care physicians’ attitudes to the adoption of electronic medical records: a systematic review and evidence synthesis using the clinical adoption framework. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018; 18 (1):101. doi: 10.1186/s12911-018-0703-x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. eHealth Network . 2015. Refined EHealth European Interoperability Framework. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Shah K., Lo C., Babich M., Tsao N.W., Bansback N.J. Bar Code Medication Administration Technology: A Systematic Review of Impact on Patient Safety When Used with Computerized Prescriber Order Entry and Automated Dispensing Devices. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2016; 69 (5):394–402. doi: 10.4212/cjhp.v69i5.1594. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. Prgomet M., Li L., Niazkhani Z., Georgiou A., Westbrook J.I. Impact of commercial computerized provider order entry (CPOE) and clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) on medication errors, length of stay, and mortality in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017; 24 (2):413–422. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw145. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Health Information Quality Authority (HIQA) 2019. National Standard on Information Requirements for a National Electronic Patient Summary. [Google Scholar]

18. Roehrs A., da Costa C.A., Righi R da R., de Oliveira K.S.F. Personal Health Records: A Systematic Literature Review. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19 (1):e13. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5876. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Lluch M. Healthcare professionals’ organisational barriers to health information technologies-a literature review. Int J Med Inform. 2011; 80 (12):849–862. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.09.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Deutsch E., Duftschmid G., Dorda W. Critical areas of national electronic health record programs-Is our focus correct? Int J Med Inform. 2010; 79 (3):211–222. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.12.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Campion-Awwad O., Hayton A., Smith L., Vuaran M. 2014. The National Programme for IT in the NHS: A Case History. https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/∼rja14/Papers/npfit-mpp-2014-case-history.pdf. [Google Scholar]

22. Fragidis L.L., Chatzoglou P.D. Implementation of a nationwide electronic health record (EHR): The international experience in 13 countries. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2018; 31 (2):116–130. doi: 10.1108/IJHCQA-09-2016-0136. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Collen M.F., Miller R.A. In: The Early History of Hospital Information Systems for Inpatient Care in the United States BT - The History of Medical Informatics in the United States. Collen M.F., Ball M.J., editors. Springer London; London: 2015. pp. 339–383. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. eHealth Ireland. Lighthouse Projects. https://www.ehealthireland.ie/Lighthouse-Projects/. Published 2016. Accessed July 3, 2020.

27. Keown K., Van Eerd D., Irvin E. Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: Knowledge transfer for policy and practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008; 28 (2) https://journals.lww.com/jcehp/Fulltext/2008/28020/Stakeholder_engagement_opportunities_in_systematic.3.aspx [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Grimshaw J.M., Santesso N., Cumpston M., Mayhew A., McGowan J. Knowledge for knowledge translation: The role of the Cochrane Collaboration. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006; 26 (1) https://journals.lww.com/jcehp/Fulltext/2006/26010/Knowledge_for_knowledge_translation__The_role_of.7.aspx [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10 (1_suppl):21–34. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308530. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Ní Shé É, Morton S., Lambert V., et al. Clarifying the mechanisms and resources that enable the reciprocal involvement of seldom heard groups in health and social care research: A collaborative rapid realist review process. Health Expect. 2019; 22 (3):298–306. doi: 10.1111/hex.12865. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Tricco A., Langlois E., Straus S. 2017. Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide.https://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/resources/publications/rapid-review-guide/en/ [Google Scholar]

33. Aromataris E., Fernandez R., Godfrey C.M., Holly C., Khalil H., Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015; 13 (3) https://journals.lww.com/ijebh/Fulltext/2015/09000/Summarizing_systematic_reviews__methodological.4.aspx [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. HSE . 2019. Factors for Success in Electronic Health Record Implementation: Literature Review and Key Considerations. [Google Scholar]

35. Shé ÉN, Keogan F., McAuliffe E., et al. Undertaking a Collaborative Rapid Realist Review to Investigate What Works in the Successful Implementation of a Frail Older Person’s Pathway. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15 (2):199. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15020199. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

36. Boonstra A., Versluis A., Vos J.F.J. Implementing electronic health records in hospitals: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14 :370. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-370. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Ratwani R., Fairbanks T., Savage E., et al. Mind the Gap. A systematic review to identify usability and safety challenges and practices during electronic health record implementation. Appl Clin Inform. 2016; 7 (4):1069–1087. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2016-06-R-0105. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Ludwick D., Manca D., Doucette J. Primary care physicians’ experiences with electronic medical records: implementation experience in community, urban, hospital, and academic family medicine. Can Fam Physician. 2010; 56 (1):40–47. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Montori V.M., Wilczynski N.L., Morgan D., Haynes R.B. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ. 2005; 330 (7482):68. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38336.804167.47. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

40. Powell B.J., Proctor E.K., Glass J.E. A Systematic Review of Strategies for Implementing Empirically Supported Mental Health Interventions. Res Soc Work Pract. 2014; 24 (2):192–212. doi: 10.1177/1049731513505778. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

41. Graneheim U.H., Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004; 24 (2):105–112. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. Thomas J., Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8 :1–10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. McMillan S.S., King M., Tully M.P. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016; 38 (3):655–662. doi: 10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Gagnon M.-P., Nsangou E.-R., Payne-Gagnon M.-P., Grenier S., Sicotte C. Barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic prescription: a systematic review of user groups’ perceptions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014; 21 (3):535–541. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002203. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

45. Police R.L., Foster T., Wong K.S. Adoption and use of health information technology in physician practice organisations: systematic review. Inform Prim Care. 2010; 18 (4):245–258. doi: 10.14236/jhi.v18i4.780. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

46. Kruse C.S., Mileski M., Alaytsev V., Carol E., Williams A. Adoption factors associated with electronic health record among long-term care facilities: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015; 5 (1) doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006615. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

47. Strudwick G., Eyasu T. Electronic Health Record Use by Nurses in Mental Health Settings: A Literature Review. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2015; 29 (4):238–241. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.03.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

48. Fritz F., Tilahun B., Dugas M. Success criteria for electronic medical record implementations in low-resource settings: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015; 22 (2):479–488. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocu038. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

49. McGinn C.A., Grenier S., Duplantie J., et al. Comparison of user groups’ perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2011; 9 :46. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-46. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

50. Kruse C.S., Kothman K., Anerobi K., Abanaka L. Adoption Factors of the Electronic Health Record: A Systematic Review. JMIR Med informatics. 2016; 4 (2):e19. doi: 10.2196/medinform.5525. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

51. Kruse C.S., Kristof C., Jones B., Mitchell E., Martinez A. Barriers to Electronic Health Record Adoption: a Systematic Literature Review. J Med Syst. 2016; 40 (12):252. doi: 10.1007/s10916-016-0628-9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

52. Ben-Zion R., Pliskin N., Fink L. Critical Success Factors for Adoption of Electronic Health Record Systems: Literature Review and Prescriptive Analysis. Inf Syst Manag. 2014; 31 (4):296–312. doi: 10.1080/10580530.2014.958024. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

53. Boonstra A., Broekhuis M. Barriers to the acceptance of electronic medical records by physicians from systematic review to taxonomy and interventions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010; 10 :231. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-231. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

54. Cresswell K., Sheikh A. Organizational issues in the implementation and adoption of health information technology innovations: An interpretative review. Int J Med Inform. 2013; 82 (5):e73–e86. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.10.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

55. de Grood C., Raiss A., Kwon Y., Santana M.J. Adoption of e-health technology by physicians: a scoping review. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016; 9 :335–344. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S103881. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

56. Gesulga J.M., Berjame A., Moquiala K.S., Galido A. Barriers to Electronic Health Record System Implementation and Information Systems Resources: A Structured Review. Procedia Comput Sci. 2017; 124 :544–551. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.188. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

57. Gill R., Borycki E.M. The Use of Case Studies in Systems Implementations Within Health Care Settings: A Scoping Review…ITCH 2017. Stud Heal Technol Informatics. 2017;(234):142–149. doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-742-9-142. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

58. Kruse C.S., Stein A., Thomas H., Kaur H. The use of Electronic Health Records to Support Population Health: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J Med Syst. 2018; 42 (11):214. doi: 10.1007/s10916-018-1075-6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

59. Kruse C., DeShazo J., Kim F., Fulton L. Factors associated with adoption of health information technology: a conceptual model based on a systematic review. JMIR Med Inf. 2014; 2 (1):e9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

60. Mair F.S., May C., O’Donnell C., Finch T., Sullivan F., Murray E. Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2012; 90 (5):357–364. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.099424. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

62. Ross J., Stevenson F., Lau R., Murray E. Factors that influence the implementation of e-health: a systematic review of systematic reviews (an update) Implement Sci. 2016; 11 (1):146. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0510-7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

63. Nguyen T.T.H., Saranto K., Tapanainen T., Ishmatova D. A Review of Health Information Technology Implementation Success Factors: Importance of Regulation and Finance. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2014:2693–2705. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2014.340. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

64. Capurro D., Echeverry A., Figueroa R., et al. Chile’s national center for health information systems: A public-private partnership to foster health care information interoperability. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017; 245 :693–695. doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-830-3-693. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

66. Nalin M., Baroni I., Faiella G., et al. The European cross-border health data exchange roadmap: Case study in the Italian setting. J Biomed Inform. 2019; 94 (April):103183. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103183. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

68. Greenhalgh T., Wherton J., Papoutsi C., et al. Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19 (11) doi: 10.2196/jmir.8775. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

69. Wright A., Aaron S., Sittig D.F. Testing electronic health records in the “production” environment: an essential step in the journey to a safe and effective health care system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017; 24 (1):188–192. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw039. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

70. Topol E. Preparing the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future The Topol Review. An independent report on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Nhs. 2019;(February):102. https://topol.hee.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/HEE-Topol-Review-2019.pdf [Google Scholar]

71. Slight S.P., Quinn C., Avery A.J., Bates D.W., Sheikh A. A qualitative study identifying the cost categories associated with electronic health record implementation in the UK. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2014; 21 (e2):e226–e231. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002404. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

72. KLAS . 2018. Improving the EHR Experience Through Personalization: An Arch Collaborative Impact Report. [Google Scholar]

74. Ford E., Menachemi N., Huerta T., Yu F. Hospital IT adoption strategies associated with implementation success: Implications for achieving meaningful use. J Healthc Manag. 2010; 55 (3):175. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

75. Lewin S., Booth A., Glenton C., et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: Introduction to the series. Implement Sci. 2018; 13 (Suppl 1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

76. Willis C.D., Saul J.E., Bitz J., Pompu K., Best A., Jackson B. Improving organizational capacity to address health literacy in public health: a rapid realist review. Public Health. 2014; 128 (6):515–524. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2014.01.014. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]