Objectives: The objectives of the present study were to assess the perceptions of physicians and midwives using an Obstetric Electronic Medical Record (EMR) software and apply the diffusion-of-innovation theory to examine the factors that users perceive as influencing the implementation of EMRs.
Patients and methods: Type of study: This is a mixed study after implementing an EMR. Study location: Dakar, Senegal. Methodology: We designed an online questionnaire sent to all users of the software. The questionnaire included three parts: a section collecting the sociodemographic and professional characteristics of the participants; a section about the usage of the software, the impact on the organization, the advantages, and limits; the last section where the users reported their degree of satisfaction and the extent to which they would be willing to recommend the software based upon their experience. The questionnaire was completely anonymized and accessible to physicians wishing to take the survey. Consent was first requested from the participants.
Results: Of the 60 physicians approached, 51 (85%) agreed to participate in this study. Of them, 62.7% were women, and the average age and experience were 32.3 years and 22.1 months, respectively. Overall, the software was perceived as simple, intuitive, and designed for an obstetrician. However, some physicians reported several drawbacks, including the time needed to type in the information, especially when they were on duty with a heavy workload, lack of sufficient computers, and some bugs. More than half of the participants agree that being young is not necessary to use the software optimally. However, an ideal user should be open-minded and cope with change. On a 0–10-scale, participants stated that they were satisfied with the software, that it positively impacted their department's organization, and that they would recommend the software, with all medians above 8.
Conclusion: Identifying the determinants of adopting the EMR is crucial for its successful implementation and dissemination. User responses will help fine-tune implementation strategies to promote better integration of this technology into medical practices beyond our facility.
Badillo P-Y. Les théories de l'innovation revisitées : une lecture communicationnelle et interdisciplinaire de l'innovation ? Du modèle « Émetteur » au modèle communicationnel. Enjeux l'information commun. 2013; 14/1(1):19-34. [Accessed 2022 Feb 08]. Available from: https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:77640
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th Ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
Heiberger RM, Holland B. Statistical Analysis and Data Display: An Intermediate Course with Examples in S-PLUS, R, and SAS. Springer-Verlag; 2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2122-5
Ndiaye MD, Mamour G, Ndour SB, Niang N, Fall NG, Fall k. Completeness of information in electronic compared with paper-based patients' records in a maternity setting in Dakar, Senegal. Intern J Reprod Contracp Obstetric Gynecology. 2020; 9(4):1429-33. [Accessed 2022 Feb 08]. Available From: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=anon~4a933df1&id=GALE|A624028020&v=2.1&it=r&sid=googleScholar&asid=81e6fc9c
Downs GW, Mohr LB. Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation. Administrative Sci Quarterly. 1976;21(4):700-14. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391725
Evan WM. Organizational lag. Human Organization. 1966; 25(1):51-3. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.25.1.v7354t3822136580
Evan WM, Black G. Innovation in business organizations: some factors associated with success or failure of staff proposals. J Business. 1967; 40(4):519-30. [Accessed 2022 Feb 08]. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2351633
Daft RL. A dual core of organizational innovation. Academy Management J. 1978; 21(2):192-210. https://doi.org/10.5465/255754
Harrow J, Willcocks L. Public services management: activities, initiatives and limits to learning. J Management Studies. 1990;27(3):281-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1990.tb00248.x
David A. Structure et dynamique des innovations managériales. Cinquième Conférence de l’Association Internationale de Management Stratégique. Lille ;1996.
Hatchuel A, Weil B. L’expert et le système. Paris: Economica; 1990.
Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13(3):319-40. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dhagarra D, Goswami M, Kumar G. Impact of Trust and Privacy Concerns on Technology Acceptance in Healthcare: An Indian Perspective. Int J Med Inform. 2020;141:104164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104164
Triandis HC. Interpersonal Behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1977.
Keplinger LE, Koopman RJ, Mehr DR, Kruse RL, Wakefield DS, Wakefield BJ, et al. Patient portal implementation: resident and attending physician attitudes. Fam Med. 2013 May; 45(5):335-40. [Accessed 2022 Feb 08]. Available from: https://fammedarchives.blob.core.windows.net/imagesandpdfs/fmhub/fm2013/May/Lynn335.pdf
Urowitz S, Wiljer D, Dupak K, Kuehner Z, Leonard K, Lovrics E, et al. Improving diabetes management with a patient portal: a qualitative study of diabetes self-management portal. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Nov 30;14(6):e158. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2265
Yau GL, Williams AS, Brown JB. Family physicians' perspectives on personal health records: qualitative study. Can Fam Physician. 2011 May;57(5):e178-84. [Accessed 2022 Feb 08]. Available from: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1016.8387&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Huba N, Zhang Y. Designing patient-centered personal health records (PHRs): health care professionals' perspective on patient-generated data. J Med Syst. 2012; 36(6):3893-905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-012-9861-z
Witry MJ, Doucette WR, Daly JM, Levy BT, Chrischilles EA. Family physician perceptions of personal health records. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2010 Jan 1;7:1d. [Accessed 2022 Feb 08]. Available from: https://bok.ahima.org/doc?oid=106698#.YgJB9urMLIU
Lester M, Boateng S, Studeny J, Coustasse A. Personal Health Records: Beneficial or Burdensome for Patients and Healthcare Providers? Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2016 Apr 1;13:1h. [Accessed 2022 Feb 08]. Available from: http://perspectives.ahima.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/03/PHRsBeneficial.pdf
Boyer L, Renaud MH, Limousin S, Henry JM, Caietta P, Fieschi M, et al. [Perception and use of an electronic medical record system by professionals of a public psychiatric hospital]. Encephale. 2009 Oct;35(5):454-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2008.06.010
Eden R, Burton-Jones A, Grant J, Collins R, Staib A, Sullivan C. Digitising an Australian university hospital: qualitative analysis of staff-reported impacts. Aust Health Rev. 2020; 44(5):677-89. https://doi.org/10.1071/ah18218
Mezni H, M-P G, Duplantie J. [Individual determinants of the Quebec electronic health record adoption]. Prat Organ Soins. 2009; 40(2):125-31. https://doi.org/10.3917/pos.402.0125
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly. 2003; 27(3):425-78. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Lapointe L, Rivard S. A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation. MIS Quarterly. 2005; 29(3):461-91. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148692
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2021 Mamour Gueye, Mame Diarra Ndiyae, Abdoul Aziz Diouf, Moussa Diallo, Mouhamadou Wade, Aissatou Mbodji, Abdou Karim Diallo, Aliou Diouf, Ousmane Thiam, Omar Gassama, Magatte Mbaye