Dimensions of Accessibility and Interoperability for Electronic Health Records in the Nordic Countries: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis of Facilitators and Barriers

This paper presents a qualitative evidence synthesis of facilitators and barriers of accessibility and interoperability of electronic health records in the Nordic Countries, i.e. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. The findings are based on a thematic analysis of 19 papers selected through a systematic search strategy from databases covering research on medicine and information systems. We recognise three dimensions in accessibility facilitators, five dimensions in accessibility barriers, two dimensions in interoperability facilitators, and three in interoperability barriers. Our findings indicate that there is an imbalance in research addressing different stakeholders, and there are differences on how stakeholders affect or are affected by the accessibility and interoperability barriers and facilitators. The findings can help in designing policies and solutions for creating health record platforms which support all relevant stakeholders in healthcare delivery.

[1]  M. Oscarsson,et al.  From passive passenger to participating co-pilot - Pregnant women's expectations of being able to access their online journal from antenatal care. , 2018, Sexual & reproductive healthcare : official journal of the Swedish Association of Midwives.

[2]  Alexander Hörbst,et al.  Adult patient access to electronic health records , 2017 .

[3]  Jacob Anhøj,et al.  MiBAlert - a new information tool to fight multidrug-resistant bacteria in the hospital setting , 2016, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[4]  Isabella Scandurra,et al.  Analysis of the Updated Swedish Regulatory Framework of the Patient Accessible Electronic Health Record in Relation to Usage Experience , 2017, MedInfo.

[5]  David W. Bates,et al.  White Paper: Personal Health Records: Definitions, Benefits, and Strategies for Overcoming Barriers to Adoption , 2006, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[6]  Ricardo João Cruz Correia,et al.  Identification and Characterization of Inter-Organizational Information Flows in the Portuguese National Health Service , 2016, Applied Clinical Informatics.

[7]  Maria Hägglund,et al.  A Socio-Technical Analysis of Patient Accessible Electronic Health Records. , 2017, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[8]  Inger Anne Tøndel,et al.  Handling Consent to Patient Data Access in a Hospital Setting , 2007, MedInfo.

[9]  Rong Chen,et al.  How to improve vital sign data quality for use in clinical decision support systems? A qualitative study in nine Swedish emergency departments , 2016, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[10]  Kumanan Wilson,et al.  The challenges in making electronic health records accessible to patients , 2012, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[11]  William R. King,et al.  Understanding the Role and Methods of Meta-Analysis in IS Research , 2005, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Göran Petersson,et al.  Implementation of a shared medication list: physicians’ views on availability, accuracy and confidentiality , 2014, International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy.

[13]  Patrick Kierkegaard,et al.  Interoperability after deployment: persistent challenges and regional strategies in Denmark. , 2015, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[14]  Julia Adler-Milstein,et al.  A comparison of how four countries use health IT to support care for people with chronic conditions. , 2014, Health affairs.

[15]  Eija Kivekäs MSc Rn Doctoral Student,et al.  General practitioners' attitudes towards electronic prescribing and the use of the national prescription centre , 2016 .

[16]  Jenny Donovan,et al.  Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[17]  Marcin Kautsch,et al.  Setting the scene for the future: implications of key legal regulations for the development of e‐health interoperability in the EU , 2017, The International journal of health planning and management.

[18]  Steven R. Simon,et al.  Correlates of Electronic Health Record Adoption in Office Practices: A Statewide Survey , 2006, AMIA.

[19]  Kaija Saranto,et al.  Definition, structure, content, use and impacts of electronic health records: A review of the research literature , 2008, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[20]  S. Liaw,et al.  Patient access to electronic health records : Differences across ten countries , 2017 .

[21]  Arre Zuurmond,et al.  Changing Perspectives on Informatics? - A Comparison of Three National Electronic Health Records , 2009, HEALTHINF.

[22]  A. Harden,et al.  Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews , 2008, BMC medical research methodology.

[23]  Robin C. Meili,et al.  Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. , 2005, Health affairs.

[24]  Elin C. Lehnbom,et al.  A Qualitative Study of Swedes' Opinions about Shared Electronic Health Records , 2013, MedInfo.

[25]  Sebastian K. Boell,et al.  On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews in IS , 2015, J. Inf. Technol..

[26]  Paula Asikainen,et al.  Usefulness of a Regional Health Care Information System in primary care: A case study , 2008, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[27]  N. Menachemi,et al.  Benefits and drawbacks of electronic health record systems , 2011 .

[28]  Maria J Grant,et al.  A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[29]  Isabella Scandurra,et al.  Implications of Swedish National Regulatory Framework of the Patient Accessible Electronic Health Record , 2016, MIE.

[30]  Christian Nøhr,et al.  Patient opinion - EHR assessment from the users perspective , 2004, MedInfo.

[31]  Maria Hägglund,et al.  Patients' Online Access to Electronic Health Records: Current Status and Experiences from the Implementation in Sweden , 2017, MedInfo.

[32]  M. Furukawa,et al.  Clinical benefits of electronic health record use: national findings. , 2014, Health services research.

[33]  Prodromos D. Chatzoglou,et al.  Development of Nationwide Electronic Health Record (ΝEHR): An international survey , 2017 .

[34]  L. Pedersen,et al.  Clinical epidemiology in the era of big data: new opportunities, familiar challenges , 2017, Clinical epidemiology.

[35]  Arthur L Kellermann,et al.  What it will take to achieve the as-yet-unfulfilled promises of health information technology. , 2013, Health affairs.

[36]  Seher Korkmaz,et al.  Physicians' reported needs of drug information at point of care in Sweden. , 2012, British journal of clinical pharmacology.