Oncologists' Views Regarding the Role of Electronic Health Records in Care Coordination.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) play a significant role in complex health care processes, especially in information transfer with patients and care coordination among providers. EHRs may also generate unintended consequences, introducing new patient safety risks. To date, little investigation has been performed in oncology settings, despite the need for quality provider-patient communication and information transfer during oncology visits. In this qualitative study, we focused on oncology providers' perceptions of EHRs for supporting communication with patients and coordination of care with other providers. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with oncologists from an urban academic medical center to learn their perceptions of the use of EHRs before, during, and after clinic visits with patients. Our interview guide was developed on the basis of the work system model. We coded transcripts using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Data analysis yielded four main themes regarding oncologists' practices in using the EHR and perceptions about EHRs: (1) EHR use for care coordination (eg, timeliness of receiving information, SmartSet documentation); (2) EHR use in the clinic visit (eg, educating patients, using as a reinforcement tool); (3) safety hazards in care coordination associated with EHRs (eg, incomplete documentation, error propagating, no filtering mechanism to capture errors); and (4) suggestions for improvements (eg, improved SmartSet functionalities, simplification of user interface). CONCLUSION: Current EHRs do not adequately support teamwork of oncology providers, which could lead to potential hazards in the care of patients with cancer. Redesigning EHR features that are tailored to support oncology care and addressing the concerns regarding information overload, improved organization of flagging abnormal results, and documentation-related workload are needed to minimize potential safety hazards.

Qualitative validation of the CAUTI Guide to Patient Safety assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired infection, including catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), is common. Although CAUTI is usually preventable, hospital units may struggle to reduce CAUTI rates. The CAUTI guide to patient safety (GPS) was developed to assess a unit's CAUTI prevention activities. Our aim was to qualitatively validate the GPS. METHODS: We interviewed participants from 2 units in each of 4 hospitals. Each unit's nurse manager completed the GPS and then discussed their answers with a trained research assistant. Semistructured interviews were conducted with unit nurses and physicians. We compared the nurse managers' answers to the unit physicians' and nurses' responses and assessed agreement. RESULTS: A total of 49 participants from 4 medical intensive care units and 4 medical-surgical units were interviewed. Nurse managers found the GPS helpful and complete. There was higher agreement between nurse managers and unit nurses than with physicians. Some questions generated more disagreement than others. Our findings suggest that the GPS is comprehensive and may be best used to stimulate discussions between stakeholders to address key issues. CONCLUSIONS: Using the GPS to assess several stakeholders' views could allow a given unit to move its CAUTI prevention efforts forward in a more informed manner.