RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The implementation of an integrated electronic health record (EHR) system can potentially provide health care providers with support standardization of patient care, pathways, and workflows, as well as provide medical staff with decision support, easier access, and the same interface across features and subsystems. These potentials require an implementation process in which the expectations of the medical staff and the provider of the new system are aligned with respect to the medical staff's knowledge and skills, as well as the interface and performance of the system. Awareness of the medical staff's level of eHealth literacy may be a way of understanding and aligning these expectations and following the progression of the implementation process. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate how a newly developed and modified instrument measuring the medical staff's eHealth literacy (staff eHealth Literacy Questionnaire [eHLQ]) can be used to inform the system provider and the health care organization in the implementation process and evaluate whether the medical staff's perceptions of the ease of use change and how this may be related to their level of eHealth literacy. METHODS: A modified version of the eHLQ was distributed to the staff of a medical department in Denmark before and 3 months after the implementation of a new EHR system. The survey also included questions related to users' perceived ease of use and their self-reported information technology skills. RESULTS: The mean age of the 194 participants before implementation was 43.1 (SD 12.4) years, and for the 198 participants after implementation, it was 42.3 (SD 12.5) years. After the implementation, the only difference compared with the preimplementation data was a small decrease in staff eHLQ5 (motivated to engage with digital services; unpaired 2-tailed t test; P=.009; effect size 0.267), and the values of the scales relating to the medical staff's knowledge and skills (eHLQ1-3) were approximately ≥3 both before and after implementation. The range of scores was narrower after implementation, indicating that some of those with the lowest ability benefited from the training and new experiences with the EHR. There was an association between perceived ease of use and the 3 tested staff eHLQ scales, both before and after implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The staff eHLQ may be a good candidate for monitoring the medical staff's digital competence in and response to the implementation of new digital solutions. This may enable those responsible for the implementation to tailor efforts to the specific needs of segments of users and inform them if the process is not going according to plan with respect to the staff's information technology-related knowledge and skills, trust in data security, motivation, and experience of a coherent system that suits their needs and supports the workflows and data availability.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Recently, several initiatives have focused on how to create true person-centred health services. This calls for a new understanding of health-related empowerment in relation to people living with one or more chronic conditions. We report on a Delphi investigation among participants in the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing that has led to a new understanding of health-related empowerment. METHODS: The Delphi process was conducted in three sequential rounds. In the first round, we presented a suggested first version for a definition of "health-related empowerment" divided into nine statements. One hundred and twenty-two experts were then asked if they agreed or not with each individual statement, and in the case they disagreed, to state the reasons for their disagreement. After revisions, the experts who had replied to the first version were asked again, if they agreed or not with each individual statement of the second version and to elaborate on disagreements. Finally, in the third round the experts were asked to provide comments to the final proposed definition in general and not by each statement. RESULTS: A total of 33 experts responded to the first version. The following revision included a merging of two statements, and the addition of health literacy as part of the understanding. The second version was sent out to the 33 experts and a total of 19 experts commented with moderate consensus. Changes included removal of "self-esteem" and change of "self-confidence" to confidence. Third version was sent out to all 122 experts with 16 respondents. Strong consensus was obtained for this third version, and is with one minor change presented as the final version. CONCLUSION: We propose a new understanding of the concept health-related empowerment, by focusing on the individual as a co-manager with freedom to choose and focus on their own well-being.
