Research into EPRs: how midwives really feel.
This article describes some of the findings of a two-year research project entitled The use of electronic patient records (EPRs) in maternity services: professional and public acceptability, commissioned by the Department of Health (DH). The main methods used were: --Literature review. --A national telephone survey of heads of midwifery (HOMs) in England (2001). --Case studies of maternity services in four NHS Trusts (2002). One of the findings of the research was that midwives and HOMs considered they had little knowledge of what EPRs are, and most were confused about whether their existing maternity information system (MIS) constituted an EPR system. The exact nature of EPRs was also contested among information technology (IT) professionals and NHS Trusts' EPR development strategies varied. Each Trust was, and still is, developing their own response to Information for health (NHS executive, 1998). Broadly speaking, these fell into one of two main categories of approach to EPR development. First, a 'best of breed' approach meant that departmental information systems, such as MISs were to be part of future EPR systems, and these specialist systems would become part of an inter-connected EPR system by being gradually connected with other departmental and Trust-wide information systems. Second, a 'big bang' or 'one-system' approach meant all departmental systems were in the process of being replaced by a single supplier's system for the whole Trust, and specialist departments were expected to meet their information needs by using specialist modules within this system. The relative merits of each approach were hotly debated both locally and nationally during the course of the research project. Another finding was that midwives had little interest in EPRs, although the views expressed were contradictory. While midwives were not interested in being involved in EPR developments, they did want to see midwifery interests represented. Nearly all midwives and midwifery managers expected their perspective to be provided by the 'IT midwife'. The definition of this role varied in different services. Also, the research found that not all IT midwives were accepted by colleagues as appropriate representatives of their needs. At a time when there are increasing pressures on midwives to expand their role, (Department of Health, 1999: RCM, 2002b) we argue that midwives should play a more proactive role in the development of EPRs. The example is given of the claim that EPR systems save practitioners time (NHS executive, 1998). The research showed that maternity EPR systems consumed more time for midwives than they saved, although where midwives could see the clinical value of having the system this burden was considered more acceptable. Midwives should ask more questions about the value of the information systems they use and the new EPR systems that are being rolled out, and this needs to be encouraged by midwifery educators.
Jones
Andrea
A
Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, University of Brighton.
Henwood
Flis
F
Hart
Angie
A
D000328:Adult; D004739:England; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D008427:Maternal Health Services / Q000592:standards*; D016347:Medical Records Systems, Computerized / Q000592:standards*; D008880:Midwifery / Q000193:education / Q000592:standards*; D009313:National Health Programs / Q000458:organization & administration; D020380:Needs Assessment; D024802:Nurse's Role; D009731:Nursing Audit / Q000379:methods; D015403:Nursing Evaluation Research; D015404:Nursing Methodology Research; D009737:Nursing Records / Q000592:standards*; D011247:Pregnancy; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013997:Time Factors; D006113:United Kingdom