Evaluation of the electronic health record system in maternal and child health centers of Marie Stopes International Ethiopia

Tizita Gizaw; Mengistu Bogale; Tilahun Alemayehu

doi:10.12688/gatesopenres.13001.1

Home Browse Evaluation of the electronic health record system in maternal and...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Evaluation of the electronic health record system in maternal and child health centers of Marie Stopes International Ethiopia

[version 1; peer review: 2 not approved]

Tizita Gizaw ¹, Mengistu Bogale², Tilahun Alemayehu³

PUBLISHED 07 Nov 2019

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Social Franchising, Marie Stopes International Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
² Research and Publication Department, Addis Ababa University School of Commerce, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
³ Department of Quality Assurance and Quality Control, Addis Pharmaceutical Factory, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Tizita Gizaw
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration

Mengistu Bogale
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision

Tilahun Alemayehu
Roles: Data Curation, Resources, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the International Conference on Family Planning gateway.

Abstract

Background: The Health Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS) defines an Electronic Health Record (EHR) as a longitudinal electronic record of patient health information generated by one or more encounters in any care delivery setting”. EHR systems improve quality and adaptability of care, contributing to patient safety. The system is also efficient and provides real-time administration to patients. Driven by the need to facilitate clinical and administrative process, and to reduce medical errors, Marie Stopes international Ethiopia (MSIE) implemented EHR system in its maternal and child health (MCH) centers. This study sought to evaluate the EHR system in six departments (inpatient, outpatient, pharmacy, laboratory, reception cashiers and MCH managers) of these MCH centers in terms of ease of performing tasks and satisfaction with the system.
Methods: A cross-sectional method with formative evaluation was used to address the objective. A sample size of 54 were used for the investigation. The participants were from six departments (inpatient, outpatient, pharmacy, laboratory, reception cashiers and MCH managers) within three MCH centers. Data was collected using structured, self-administered questionnaires and interviews and analyzed using SPSS 20.
Results: In total, 83% of respondents found that performing tasks using EHR made tasks easier; the lowest score was from Pharmacy department (48%). The overall satisfaction with EHR was 87%. The lowest score is from the indicator “the system meets my needs” (80%).
Conclusions: Staffs in all department reported the EHR system as “very good” for both ease of performing their daily tasks and satisfaction with the system. In addition, the study revealed that ease of performing tasks and satisfaction with the system were varied by department and specific task within the department. It is essential to know the needs and requirements of each department before implementation of the system and user feedback for long lasting uptake and impact.

Keywords

Electronic health recording system, user satisfaction, Ethiopia and evaluation

Corresponding author: Tizita Gizaw

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded publication of this work (grant number OPP1181398). Funding for this work was provided to Marie Stopes Ethiopia by UKAID (B012,E2601), EKN (B002,E2578) and a large anonymous donor (E001,E2512).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2019 Gizaw T et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Gizaw T, Bogale M and Alemayehu T. Evaluation of the electronic health record system in maternal and child health centers of Marie Stopes International Ethiopia [version 1; peer review: 2 not approved]. Gates Open Res 2019, 3:1655 (https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13001.1) First published: 07 Nov 2019, 3:1655 (https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13001.1) Latest published: 07 Nov 2019, 3:1655 (https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13001.1)

Abbreviation

EHR, electronic health record system; HIMSS, health information management system society; MCH, Maternal and Child health; MSIE, Marie Stopes International Ethiopia

Introduction

The Health Information Management Systems Society’s (HIMSS) define EHR as: “The Electronic Health Record (EHR) is a longitudinal electronic record of patient health information generated by one or more encounters in any care delivery setting. Included in this information, are patient demographics, progress notes, problems, medications, vital signs, past medical history, immunizations, laboratory data and radiology reports” (Ahmed et al., 2013).

Recording of patient data on paper obstructs the coherence and nature of medical care offered to patients. Furthermore, paper-based frameworks have restricted usefulness, limiting reviewing of medical records by care givers simultaneously. Storage of paper records takes up more space and hinders easy access to patient information (Carayon et al., 2009). By contrast, EHR can create a complete patient record of the entire clinical experience. The system automates the clinical work process and improves quality of care (Ahmed et al., 2013). Patient records can also be easily retrieved using the patient’s name, phone number or registry number.

Currently, paper-based recordings are being migrated to electronic recording systems because electronic health recording (EHR) systems improves quality and adaptability of care recording, contributing to patient safety. The system is also efficient and provides real-time administration to patients (Rezaeibagha et al., 2015). Therefore, using HERs is an essential part in health care delivery to improve quality and safety (Ellsworth et al., 2017). The US Institute of Medicine has characterized EHRs as an essential technology for improving the safety, quality and efficiency of health care (Chiang et al., 2013).

An assessment of nine hospitals that implemented a comprehensive electronic health record (EHR) system discovered an improvement on the speed and accuracy of communication leading to less duplicative tests, quicker responses to client’s needs, and a complete capture of charges (Silow-Carroll et al., 2012).

The averted costs associated with efficiencies created by maintaining and availing patient data electronically contributes to the financial benefits of the EHR system. Some of the averted costs are related to reduced staff number required in patient management, reduced stationary and printing costs required to maintain paper records (Menachemi & Collum, 2011).

On the other hand, a study done in a residency’s family medicine center in Birmingham, AL, USA, revealed that Physicians and residents are very dissatisfied with the amount of time required for documentation using the EHR system (Bloom & Huntington, 2010). Following the implementation of EHR, both clinical staff and office staff spent more time on transcribing data to computer to maintain medical information system (Carayon et al., 2009).

In this study we will evaluate the EHR system implemented in three of the MCH centers in Marie stopes international Ethiopia (MSIE). The study will evaluate ease of performing tasks and satisfaction with the system in six departments (inpatient, outpatient, pharmacy, laboratory, reception cashiers and MCH managers). Each department performs a unique task that contributes to the overall performance of the facility. Thus, we hypothesized that the ease of performing tasks and satisfaction with the EHR system varies by department and by specific task within a department.

Methods

Study approach

We used a cross-sectional study with formative evaluation method to address the objective. At the time of the investigation there were 134 staff members from three of the MCH centers using the EHR system in their daily activities. Of the 134 staff members, only 68 fulfilled the selection criteria of working 6 months in the MCH center prior to the implementation of the system. From the selected 68 staff members, only those trained by MISE about the system were selected as final study participants. Therefore, a total sample size of 54 participants were used for the investigation. The participants were from six departments (inpatient, outpatient, pharmacy, laboratory, reception cashiers and MCH managers) within three MCH centers.

Data was collected using structured, self-administered questionnaires and interviews (available as Extended data (Sharew, 2019)). The interviews were conducted with two people from each department to find out their daily tasks. Then a unique set of task list was prepared for each department. Using these task lists, a different questionnaire for each of the six departments were developed. The questionnaires involved a section where the respondents answer by ticking and a section where respondents are asked to answer by writing.

Data analysis

Data were then checked for completeness, consistency and analyzed using SPSS for Windows v20. The usefulness dimension was measured by how the participants found the system affecting their day to day activities and operations. The user satisfaction-dimension was measured for relevant aspects. Each dimension and their indicators were judged using a judgement criterion: >95% excellent, 80–94% very good, 65–79% good, 50–64% fair, <50% poor. Descriptive statistics tables and graphs will be used to describe the findings.

Ethical approval

The study was conducted after ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Ethical Review Committee of Addis Ababa University School of Commerce. During the data collection period, the participants were well informed about the purpose of the study. Written informed consent of the respondents was obtained before the commencement of the study. Involvement was fully decided by the participants. The response was confidential. Monitoring and supervision of data collectors was done throughout the whole data collection period. To assess the completeness, clarity and consistency the collected data were checked daily after data collection.

Results and discussion

Demographic data of respondents

Of the total 54 respondents, 17 (31%) were from the inpatient department and 18 (33%) were from the outpatient department. Of all the participants, 31 (57%) worked between 4 and 5 years with the organization. Of the respondents, 14 (26%) were nurses and 11 (20%) were midwives (Table 1). Results from all surveys and questionnaires are available as Underlying data (Sharew, 2019).

Table 1. Descriptive of socio-demographic of respondents (n=54).

Sociodemographic variables		Frequency	Percentage
Department of respondents	Inpatient	17	31%
	Outpatient	18	33%
	Pharmacy	5	9%
	Laboratory	4	7%
	MCH Manager	3	6%
	Reception Cashier	7	13%
Type of respondents	Midwife	11	20%
	Nurse	14	26%
	Health officer	6	11%
	Gynecologist	4	7%
	Pharmacist/Pharmacy technicians	5	9%
	Laboratory technicians	4	7%
	Non-health professionals	10	19%
Work experience, years	4–5	31	57%
	5–6	15	28%
	7–10	8	15%

Ease of performing tasks using EHR

Inpatient department

Most participants from the inpatient department agree that the EHR system made their daily tasks easier. Admitting patients, following admitted patients’ medical usage and monitoring consumables during procedure were indicated by all the participants from the department as activities made easier following EHR implantation (Table 2). Similarly, a study done in a small family practice clinic in USA also indicated an increase in time spent on patient care and decrease in time spent in meeting and performing lab works (Carayon et al., 2009).

Table 2. Ease of performing tasks using EHR in the inpatient department.

How has the EHR system changed the performance of the following tasks?	More difficult/slightly more difficult/no change	Slightly easier/easier/ significantly easier
To admit patients has become	0%	100%
To refer clients to other Medical center/ specialists/departments has become	6%	94%
To follow admitted clients Medication usage	0%	100%
To monitor consumables during procedure	0%	100%
Billing for consumables	6%	94%
To follow 1^st stage labor care	12%	88%
To follow 2^nd stage labor care	12%	88%
To monitor labor using partograph	12%	88%
To follow post-delivery status	6%	94%
To monitor OR outcome	6%	94%
To monitor Neonate outcome	24%	76%
Overall ease of performing tasks using EHR/Inpatient		92%

Outpatient department

In total, 94% of those in the outpatient department felt EHR made performing tasks easier (Table 3). All respondents agree that the system made it easier to seek out specific information from the client record, to produce data reviews for specific patient groups, to order clinical laboratory, to order and receive ultrasound results and to write prescription. However, only 61% of the respondents agree that the system made it easier to complete sick-leave forms.

Table 3. Ease of performing tasks using EHR in the outpatient department.

How has the EHR system changed the performance of the following task?	More difficult/slightly more difficult/No change	Slightly easier/easier/ significantly easier
To review the client’s problems has become	6%	95%
To seek out specific information from the client record	0%	100%
To follow the results of a test or investigation has become	6%	94%
To enter daily notes has become	6%	94%
To answer questions concerning general medical knowledge (e.g. Concerning treatment, symptoms, complications etc.) has become	11%	89%
To produce data reviews for specific patient groups (EG. Complication rate) has become	0%	100%
To order clinical laboratory analysis has become	0%	100%
To obtain the results from clinical laboratory analysis has become	6%	94%
To order ultrasound investigation has become	0%	100%
To obtain results from ultrasound has become	0%	100%
To refer the patients to other departments or specialists has become	11%	89%
To order treatments directly (E.g. medicines, operations etc.,) has become	6%	94%
To write prescription has become	0%	100%
To complete sick-leave forms has become	39%	61%
To give written individual information to patients (E.g. About medications, disease status)	6%	94%
Over all ease of performing tasks using EHR/Outpatient		94%

Pharmacy department

The result showed that the system made it easier to know available drugs in the dispensing area and billing for medications. However, the respondents indicated that the system made the it difficult to rule out drug interactions and maintain allergy and active medication lists (Table 4). The study revealed that the need and the requirements of pharmacy department had not been reflected in the system design. The agency of healthcare research and quality to support research policy information in the area of EHR indicated that, if effectively implemented, EHR system reduces the need to rely on memory alone for information required to complete a task such as medical history, allergies and formulations (Armijo et al., 2009).

Table 4. Ease of performing tasks using EHR in the pharmacy department.

How has the EHR system changed the performance of the following tasks?	More difficult/slightly more difficult/no change	Slightly easier/easier/ significantly easier
To clearly read prescription	40%	60%
To dispense medications	40%	60%
To dispense multiple drug from the prescription	60%	40%
To know available drugs in dispensing area	0%	100%
Monitor medications by expiry date	80%	20%
Serving clients in order	20%	80%
Billing for medication	0%	100%
Implement drug-drug and drug-allergy interaction checks	100%	0%
To maintain an active medications allergy list	100%	0%
To maintain an active medications list	100%	0%
To detect duplication of therapies	20%	80%
To monitor controlled drug prescription	60%	40%
Over all ease of performing tasks using EHR/Pharmacy		48%

Laboratory department

The overall ease of performing tasks using EHR in laboratory department was 82%. From the list of activities performed in laboratory department, only half of the agree that the system make processing lab packages by category of services easier (Table 5).

Table 5. Ease of performing tasks using EHR in the laboratory department.

How has the EHR system changed the performance of the following tasks?	More difficult/slightly difficult/no change	Significantly easier/ easier/slightly easier
Receiving lab orders	0%	100%
Serving clients in order	0%	100%
Avoiding errors in giving results	25%	75%
Billing for service	25%	75%
Ensure accuracy of lab results	25%	75%
Process reference laboratory results	0%	100%
Process lab packages by category of services (ANC, CAC)	50%	50%
Over all ease of performing tasks using EHR/Laboratory		82%

Reception cashiers

All the respondents, reception cashiers, showed that the system made their daily task easier (Table 6).

Table 6. Ease of performing tasks using EHR for reception cashiers.

How has the EHR system changed the performance of the following tasks?	More difficult/slightly difficult/no change	Significantly easier/ easier/slightly easier
To register patient/client information	-	100%
Finding mistakes and missing information	-	100%
Billing and change capture	-	100%
Searching for patient file	-	100%
Finding the exact client document searching for	-	100%
Over all ease of performing tasks using EHR/Reception cashiers		100%

MCH managers

MCH managers found the system easy to use when performing most of their day to day activities. However, 67% of the respondents indicated that the system makes it difficult to do income to cost ration (Table 7). Similarly, a survey done in Australian hospitals revealed that a majority of managers (82%) stated that EHR improved data quality by readily availing information and improving the legibility of records (Mckenzie, 2003).

Table 7. Ease of performing tasks using EHR system for MCH managers.

How has the EHR system changed the performance of the following tasks?	More difficult/Slightly difficult/no change	Significantly easier/ Easier/Slightly easier
Getting total number of clients as needed	0%	100%
Getting provider level performance	0%	100%
Getting number of clients/services	0%	100%
Producing data reviews for specific patient groups (e.g. complication rate, diagnosis)	0%	100%
Total cash collected daily/weekly and monthly	0%	100%
To calculate income to cost ration	67%	33%
To show service trend	0%	100%
Providing remote access to data	33%	67%
Providing live data for presentations	33%	67%
Controlling fraud	0%	100%
Over all ease of performing tasks using EHR/MCH Manager		81%

User satisfaction

When participants asked to rank their satisfaction with various aspects of use, total reported satisfaction with the EHR system (agree/strongly agree) was 87% (Figure 1). With the work they do on EHR system, inpatient staff were least satisfied (72%) followed by outpatient (74%) and pharmacy department (76%).

Figure 1. Satisfaction reported by staff in each departments.

Limitations

Limited literatures were available to compare and discuss the findings with, and social desirability bias.

Conclusion and recommendations

Staff in all department reported the EHR system ease of use as ‘very good’ for ease of performing their daily tasks using EHR system. The lowest score for ease of performing tasks was from pharmacy department and highest score was from reception cashiers. The reported satisfaction with the system was also high. In addition, the study revealed that ease of performing tasks using EHR and satisfaction with the system varied by department and by task within a department. It is essential to know the needs and requirements of each department before implementation of the system and getting user feedback for long lasting uptake and impact. It is also imperative that the workflow and information needs of each unit are met to optimize system utilization resulting quality of care.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: Evaluation of EHR system. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8203172 (Sharew, 2019).

This project contains the following underlying data:

CM.sav (responses from MCH managers)
IP.sav (responses from inpatient staff)
laboratory.sav (responses from staff in the laboratory department)
OPD.sav (responses from outpatient staff)
pharmacy.sav (responses from pharmacy staff)
receptionists.sav (responses from cashiers/receptionists)

Extended data

Figshare: Evaluation of EHR system. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8203172 (Sharew, 2019).

The project contains the following extended data:

questionnaire.pdf (questionnaire used in the present study with consent form)
Interview guide.pdf (survey given to all participants)

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

The authors take pride in acknowledging the insightful guidance of Teshager Mersha, and Mathias Tenaye. We wish to thank Gizaw Sharew and Wogayehu Mamo for their support. We also appreciate the hardworking and committed service providers in three of maternal and child health centers.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

Ahmed S, Saad D, Samie GA: Evaluation of Electronic health records adoption in Egypt. Journal of Engineering. 2013; 3(1): 1131–1134. Reference Source
Armijo D, McDonnell C, Werner K: Electronic health record usability: evaluation and use case framework. AHRQ publication. 2009; 9(10): 1–57. Reference Source
Bloom MV, Huntington MK: Faculty, resident, and clinic staff's evaluation of the effects of EHR implementation. Fam Med. 2010; 42(8): 562–566. PubMed Abstract
Carayon P, Smith P, Hundt AS, et al.: Implementation of an electronic health records system in a small clinic: the view point of clinic staff. Behav Inf Technol. 2009; 28(1): 5–20. Publisher Full Text
Chiang MF, Read-Brown S, Tu DC, et al.: Evaluation of electronic health record implementation in ophthalmology at an academic medical center (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 111: 70–92. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
Ellsworth MA, Dziadzko M, O'Horo JC, et al.: An appraisal of published usability evaluations of electronic health records via systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017; 24(1): 218–226. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Mckenzie K, W S: Building the bridge to E-coding. Health information management association of australin conference. Sidney. 2003; 1–6.
Menachemi N, Collum TH: Benefits and drawbacks of electronic health record systems. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2011; 4: 47–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Rezaeibagha F, Win KT, Susilo W: A systematic literature review on security and privacy of electronic health record systems: technical perspectives. Health Inf Manag. 2015; 44(3): 23–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Silow-Carroll S, Edwards JN, Rodin D: Using electronic health records to improve quality and efficiency: the experiences of leading hospitals. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2012; 17: 1–40. PubMed Abstract
Sharew T: Evaluation of EHR system. figshare. Dataset. 2019. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8203172.v2

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 07 Nov 2019

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Social Franchising, Marie Stopes International Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
² Research and Publication Department, Addis Ababa University School of Commerce, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
³ Department of Quality Assurance and Quality Control, Addis Pharmaceutical Factory, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Tizita Gizaw
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration

Mengistu Bogale
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision

Tilahun Alemayehu
Roles: Data Curation, Resources, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded publication of this work (grant number OPP1181398). Funding for this work was provided to Marie Stopes Ethiopia by UKAID (B012,E2601), EKN (B002,E2578) and a large anonymous donor (E001,E2512).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 07 Nov 2019, 3:1655

https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13001.1

Copyright

© 2019 Gizaw T et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
Gates Open Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Gizaw T, Bogale M and Alemayehu T. Evaluation of the electronic health record system in maternal and child health centers of Marie Stopes International Ethiopia [version 1; peer review: 2 not approved]. Gates Open Res 2019, 3:1655 (https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13001.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 07 Nov 2019

Views

8

Reviewer Report 29 Sep 2020

Salla Atkins, New Social Research and Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.14109.r29044

Gizaw et al.’s study focused on an evaluation of the electronic health record system in maternal and child health centers of Marie Stopes International Ethiopia. Overall, electronic health records have several benefits over paper-based records, and are an essential part ... Continue reading

Gizaw et al.’s study focused on an evaluation of the electronic health record system in maternal and child health centers of Marie Stopes International Ethiopia. Overall, electronic health records have several benefits over paper-based records, and are an essential part of safe, quality healthcare. I found this paper to be highly descriptive and would recommend further analysis and consideration of their findings. My more detailed comments are below:

The literature used in the article is rather dated, with fewer recent papers. The authors would benefit from adding more recent literature. For example there are several systematic reviews that the authors could include, and consider in their presentation of the paper.
The study design is a cross-sectional evaluation study, with interviews and surveys. Despite using mixed methods, the paper does not refer to the implications or methods of using mixed methods.

Another challenge of the paper is the highly descriptive nature of the paper, where results are reported by percentages in six departments in three different MCH centres. This, with 68 participants means that we don’t get a picture of what might have differed between different MCH centres, and we don’t know what data came from where. Overall, the results are presented by different departments, not taking into account different MCH centres in the study, and with no comparison across the settings.

I suggest the authors use SURGE – The Survey reporting guideline, to report their findings, and add detail of the interviews conducted¹.
Sufficient detail is given of the analysis of the survey responses, but no information is given of the analysis of the 6 interviews that were part of this study.
In terms of statistical analysis and interpretation, again this refers to the descriptive nature of the study. Having three different centres is not considered in the analysis or results at all. I suggest the authors re-examine their data for patterns across the different MCH, and patterns across the interviews and self-administered questionnaires.
The limitations section is extremely limited, and does not discuss e.g. the potential limitation of self report, response rate of the survey (was it 100%)? and the limited sample size.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Grimshaw J: SURGE (The SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE). 2014. 206-213 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Public health policy.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

9

Reviewer Report 11 Sep 2020

Shabbir Syed Abdul, International Center for Health Information Technology (ICHIT), Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/gatesopenres.14109.r29469

The authors attempted to evaluate the EHR system in six departments of the MCH centres in terms of ease of performing tasks and satisfaction with the system. I have a few concerns with the methodology and results presented.

What

The authors attempted to evaluate the EHR system in six departments of the MCH centres in terms of ease of performing tasks and satisfaction with the system. I have a few concerns with the methodology and results presented.

What new information this study is contributing to the research society? Already there are tons of research done on exactly the same topic.
Inclusion criteria are not clear, why authors need 6-month experience prior to the implementation of the system? I think they should include a participant with 6-months experience with EHR.
English has to be revised by the native speaker, many sentences are not clear.
The percentage of the respondents shown in table 1 is more than 100.
Citations are too few and very old, I strongly recommend authors to update the citations with the latest studies.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: AI, Big data analytics, EHR.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 07 Nov 2019

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 07 Nov 19	read	read

Shabbir Syed Abdul, International Center for Health Information Technology (ICHIT), Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
Salla Atkins, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

29 Sep 2020 | for Version 1

Salla Atkins, New Social Research and Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

8 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

Gizaw et al.’s study focused on an evaluation of the electronic health record system in maternal and child health centers of Marie Stopes International Ethiopia. Overall, electronic health records have several benefits over paper-based records, and are an essential part of safe, quality healthcare. I found this paper to be highly descriptive and would recommend further analysis and consideration of their findings. My more detailed comments are below:

The literature used in the article is rather dated, with fewer recent papers. The authors would benefit from adding more recent literature. For example there are several systematic reviews that the authors could include, and consider in their presentation of the paper.
The study design is a cross-sectional evaluation study, with interviews and surveys. Despite using mixed methods, the paper does not refer to the implications or methods of using mixed methods.

Another challenge of the paper is the highly descriptive nature of the paper, where results are reported by percentages in six departments in three different MCH centres. This, with 68 participants means that we don’t get a picture of what might have differed between different MCH centres, and we don’t know what data came from where. Overall, the results are presented by different departments, not taking into account different MCH centres in the study, and with no comparison across the settings.

I suggest the authors use SURGE – The Survey reporting guideline, to report their findings, and add detail of the interviews conducted¹.
Sufficient detail is given of the analysis of the survey responses, but no information is given of the analysis of the 6 interviews that were part of this study.
In terms of statistical analysis and interpretation, again this refers to the descriptive nature of the study. Having three different centres is not considered in the analysis or results at all. I suggest the authors re-examine their data for patterns across the different MCH, and patterns across the interviews and self-administered questionnaires.
The limitations section is extremely limited, and does not discuss e.g. the potential limitation of self report, response rate of the survey (was it 100%)? and the limited sample size.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Grimshaw J: SURGE (The SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE). 2014. 206-213 Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Public health policy.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

9 Views

11 Sep 2020 | for Version 1

Shabbir Syed Abdul, International Center for Health Information Technology (ICHIT), Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan

9 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

The authors attempted to evaluate the EHR system in six departments of the MCH centres in terms of ease of performing tasks and satisfaction with the system. I have a few concerns with the methodology and results presented.

What new information this study is contributing to the research society? Already there are tons of research done on exactly the same topic.
Inclusion criteria are not clear, why authors need 6-month experience prior to the implementation of the system? I think they should include a participant with 6-months experience with EHR.
English has to be revised by the native speaker, many sentences are not clear.
The percentage of the respondents shown in table 1 is more than 100.
Citations are too few and very old, I strongly recommend authors to update the citations with the latest studies.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

No
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

AI, Big data analytics, EHR.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] Ahmed S, Saad D, Samie GA: Evaluation of Electronic health records adoption in Egypt. Journal of Engineering. 2013; 3(1): 1131–1134. Reference Source

[2] Armijo D, McDonnell C, Werner K: Electronic health record usability: evaluation and use case framework. AHRQ publication. 2009; 9(10): 1–57. Reference Source

[3] Bloom MV, Huntington MK: Faculty, resident, and clinic staff's evaluation of the effects of EHR implementation. Fam Med. 2010; 42(8): 562–566. PubMed Abstract

[4] Carayon P, Smith P, Hundt AS, et al.: Implementation of an electronic health records system in a small clinic: the view point of clinic staff. Behav Inf Technol. 2009; 28(1): 5–20. Publisher Full Text

[5] Chiang MF, Read-Brown S, Tu DC, et al.: Evaluation of electronic health record implementation in ophthalmology at an academic medical center (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 111: 70–92. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text

[6] Ellsworth MA, Dziadzko M, O'Horo JC, et al.: An appraisal of published usability evaluations of electronic health records via systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017; 24(1): 218–226. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] Mckenzie K, W S: Building the bridge to E-coding. Health information management association of australin conference. Sidney. 2003; 1–6.

[8] Menachemi N, Collum TH: Benefits and drawbacks of electronic health record systems. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2011; 4: 47–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] Rezaeibagha F, Win KT, Susilo W: A systematic literature review on security and privacy of electronic health record systems: technical perspectives. Health Inf Manag. 2015; 44(3): 23–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] Silow-Carroll S, Edwards JN, Rodin D: Using electronic health records to improve quality and efficiency: the experiences of leading hospitals. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2012; 17: 1–40. PubMed Abstract

[11] Sharew T: Evaluation of EHR system. figshare. Dataset. 2019. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8203172.v2

Evaluation of the electronic health record system in maternal and child health centers of Marie Stopes International Ethiopia

Abstract

Keywords

Abbreviation

Introduction

Methods

Study approach

Data analysis

Ethical approval

Results and discussion

Demographic data of respondents

Table 1. Descriptive of socio-demographic of respondents (n=54).

Ease of performing tasks using EHR

Inpatient department

Table 2. Ease of performing tasks using EHR in the inpatient department.

Outpatient department

Table 3. Ease of performing tasks using EHR in the outpatient department.

Pharmacy department

Table 4. Ease of performing tasks using EHR in the pharmacy department.

Laboratory department

Table 5. Ease of performing tasks using EHR in the laboratory department.

Reception cashiers

Table 6. Ease of performing tasks using EHR for reception cashiers.

MCH managers

Table 7. Ease of performing tasks using EHR system for MCH managers.

User satisfaction

Figure 1. Satisfaction reported by staff in each departments.

Limitations

Conclusion and recommendations

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a Gates-funded researcher?

Thank you!