The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to population health.
December 2009 (Volume 87)
December 2009 | Trisha Greenhalgh, Henry W.W. Potts, Geoff Wong, Pippa Bark, Deborah Swinglehurst | Featured Article
Context: The extensive research literature on electronic patient records (EPRs) presents challenges to systematic reviewers because it covers multiple research traditions with different underlying philosophical assumptions and methodological approaches.
Methods: Using the meta-narrative method and searching beyond the Medline-indexed literature, this review used “conflicting” findings to address higher-order questions about how researchers had differently conceptualized and studied the EPR and its implementation.
Findings: Twenty-four previous systematic reviews and ninety-four further primary studies were considered. Key tensions in the literature centered on (1) the EPR (“container” or “itinerary”); (2) the EPR user (“information-processer” or “member of socio-technical network”); (3) organizational context (“the setting within which the EPR is implemented” or “the EPR-in-use”); (4) clinical work (“decision making” or “situated practice”); (5) the process of change (“the logic of determinism” or “the logic of opposition”); (6) implementation success (“objectively defined” or “socially negotiated”); and (7) complexity and scale (“the bigger the better” or “small is beautiful”).
Conclusions: The findings suggest that EPR use will always require human input to recontextualize knowledge; that even though secondary work (audit, research, billing) may be made more efficient by the EPR, primary clinical work may be made less efficient; that paper may offer a unique degree of ecological flexibility; and that smaller EPR systems may sometimes be more efficient and effective than larger ones. We suggest an agenda for further research.
Author(s): Trisha Greenhalgh; Henry W.W. Potts; Geoff Wong; Pippa Bark; Deborah Swinglehurst
Keywords: systematic review; electronic patient records; innovation
Download the study
Read on Wiley Online Library
Read on JSTOR
Volume 87, Issue 4 (pages 729–788)
Published in 2009
Expensive Cancer Drugs: A Comparison Between the United States and the United Kingdom
In This Issue