The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
December 2009 (Volume 87)
Quarterly Article
Trisha Greenhalgh
Henry W.W. Potts
Geoff Wong
Pippa Bark
Deborah Swinglehurst
December 2024
Dec 19, 2024
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
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
Read on Wiley Online Library
Read on JSTOR
Volume 87, Issue 4 (pages 729–788) DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00578.x Published in 2009
