A KM perspective on implementing an electronic patient record within an NHS hospital

The Electronic Patient Record (EPR) is being developed by many hospitals in the UK and across the globe. We class an EPR system as a type of Knowledge Management System (KMS), in that it is a technological tool developed to support the process of knowledge management (KM). Healthcare organisations aim to use these systems to provide a vehicle for more informed and improved clinical decision making thereby delivering reduced errors and risks, enhanced quality and consequently offering enhanced patient safety. Finding an effective way for a healthcare organisation to practically implement these systems is essential. In this study we use the concept of the business process approach to KM as a theoretical lens to analyse and explore how a large NHS teaching hospital developed, executed and practically implemented an EPR system. This theory advocates the importance of taking into account all organizational activities - the business processes - in considering any KM initiatives. Approaching KM through business processes allows for a more holistic view of the requirements across a process: emphasis is placed on how particular activities are performed, how they are structured and what knowledge demanded and not just supplied across each process. This falls in line with the increased emphasis in healthcare on patient-centred approaches to care delivery. We have found in previous research that hospitals are happy with the delivery of patient care being referred to as their 'business'. A qualitative study was conducted over a two and half year period with data collected from semi-structured interviews with eight members of the strategic management team, 12 clinical users and 20 patients in addition to non- participant observation of meetings and documentary data. We believe that the inclusion of patients within the study may well be the first time this has been done in examining the implementation of a KMS. The theoretical propositions strategy was used as the overarching approach for data analysis. Here Initial theoretical research themes and propositions were used to help shape and organise the case study analysis. This paper will present preliminary findings about the hospital's business strategy and its links to the KMS strategy and process.

A patient's perspective:the impact of adverse drug reactions on patients and their views on reporting

What is known and objective: Adverse drug reactions to prescribed medication are relatively common events. However, the impact such reactions have on patients and their attitude to reporting such events have only been poorly explored. Previous studies relying on self-reporting patients indicate that altruism is an important factor. In the United Kingdom, patient reporting started in 2005; though, numbers of serious reports remain low. Method: A purposive sample of fifteen patients who had been admitted to an inner city hospital with an adverse drug reaction were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Patients were asked to relate in their own words their experience of an adverse drug reaction. Patient's reactions to the information leaflet, adherence to treatment and use of other sources of information on medication were assessed. Interviews were recorded, and a thematic analysis of patients'responses was performed. Results and discussion: Analysis of the patient interviews demonstrated the reality of being admitted to hospital is often a frightening process with a significant emotional cost. Anger, isolation, resentment and blame were common factors, particularly when medicines had been prescribed for acute conditions. For patients with chronic conditions, a more phlegmatic approach was seen especially with conditions with a strong support networks. Patients felt that communication and information should have been more readily available from the health care professional who prescribed the medication, although few had read the patient information leaflet. Only a minority of patients linked the medication they had taken to the adverse event, although some had received false reassurance that the drug was not related to their illness creating additional barriers. In contrast to previous studies, many patients felt that adverse drug reporting was not their concern, particularly as they obtained little direct benefit from it. The majority of patients were unaware of the Yellow Card Scheme in the UK for patient reporting. Even when explained, the scheme was felt too cold and impersonal and not a patient's 'job'. What is new and conclusion: Patients having a severe adverse drug reaction following an acute illness felt negative emotions towards their health care provider. Those with a chronic condition rationalized the event and coped better with its impact. Neither group felt that reporting the adverse reaction was their responsibility. Encouraging patients to report remains important but expecting patients to report solely for altruistic purposes may be unrealistic. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Patients' and physicians' experiences of atrial fibrillation consultations and anticoagulation decision-making:a multi-perspective IPA design

OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' and physicians' experiences of atrial fibrillation consultations and oral anticoagulation decision-making. DESIGN: Multi-perspective interpretative phenomenological analyses. METHODS: Participants included small homogeneous subgroups: AF patients who accepted (n=4), refused (n=4), or discontinued (n=3) warfarin, and four physician subgroups (n=4 each group): consultant cardiologists, consultant general physicians, general practitioners and cardiology registrars. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Transcripts were analysed using multi-perspective IPA analyses to attend to individuals within subgroups and making comparisons within and between groups. RESULTS: Three themes represented patients' experiences: Positioning within the physician-patient dyad, Health-life balance, and Drug myths and fear of stroke. Physicians' accounts generated three themes: Mechanised metaphors and probabilities, Navigating toward the 'right' decision, and Negotiating systemic factors. CONCLUSIONS: This multi-perspective IPA design facilitated an understanding of the diagnostic consultation and treatment decision-making which foregrounded patients' and physicians' experiences. We drew on Habermas' theory of communicative action to recommend broadening the content within consultations and shifting the focus to patients' life contexts. Interventions including specialist multidisciplinary teams, flexible management in primary care, and multifaceted interventions for information provision may enable the creation of an environment that supports genuine patient involvement and participatory decision-making.