Electronic referrals: What matters to the users

BACKGROUND Between September 2010 and May 2011 we evaluated three implementations of electronic referral (eReferral) systems at Hutt Valley, Northland and Canterbury District Health Boards in New Zealand. METHODS Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered through project documentation, database records and stakeholder interviews. This paper reports on the user perspectives based on interviews with 78 clinical, management and operational stakeholders in the three regions. Themes that emerge across the regions are compared and synthesised. Interviews focused on pre-planned domains including quality of referral, ease of use and patient safety, but agendas were adapted progressively to elaborate and triangulate on themes emerging from earlier interviews and to clarify indications from analysis of database records. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The eReferral users, including general practitioners, specialists and administrative staff, report benefits in the areas of: (1) availability and transparency of referral-related data; (2) work transformation; (3) improved data quality and (4) the convenience of auto-population from the practice management system into the referral forms. eReferral provides enhanced visibility of referral data and status within the limits of the implementation (which only goes to the hospital door in some cases). Users in all projects indicated the desire to further exploit IT to enhance two-way communication between community and hospital. Reduced administrative handling is a clear work transformation benefit with mixed feedback regarding clinical workload impact. Innovations such as GP eReferral triaging teams illustrate the further potential for workflow transformation. Consistent structure in eReferrals, as well as simple legibility, enhances data quality. Efficiency and completeness is provided by auto-population of forms from system data, but opens issues around data accuracy. All three projects highlight the importance of user involvement in design, implementation and refinement. In keeping with this, Canterbury utilises a systematic pathway definition process that brings together GPs and specialist to debate and agree on the local management of a condition. User feedback exposes many opportunities for improving usability. STUDY LIMITATIONS The findings are based on individual experiences accounted by participating stakeholders; the risk of bias is mitigated, however, by triangulation across three distinct implementations of eReferrals. Quantitative follow-up on key outstanding issues, notably impact of structured eReferral forms on GP time to write a referral, is warranted. CONCLUSION Key eReferral users include clinicians on both ends of the referral process as well as the administrative staff. User experience in three eReferral projects has shown that they particularly appreciate improvement of referral visibility, as well as information quality; promising workflow transformations have been achieved in some places. Auto-population of forms leads to opportunities, and issues, that are prompting further attention to data quality. While the importance of user feedback should be obvious, it is not universal to seek it or to provide resources to effectively follow up with improvements driven by such feedback. To maximise benefits, innovative health IT projects must take an iterative approach guided by ongoing user experience.