duplication of patient records, (Hardiker et al.,
2000). All such issues are time savers.
Stausberg, et al., (2003) have noted that paper
and electronic-based records, of patients, are
generally used in unison, for the benefit of
implementing different tasks.
2.2 Problems with EMR
Some problems arise from the design of the EMR
system. McDonald (1997) draws attention to
hardware problems, such as interference between the
EMR system and electronic equipment. Berg (1997)
raises the 'rush hour' problem, where many
information sources exchange procedures of
laboratory results and other information at the same
time causing "important obstacles to the network's
smooth functioning".
Often the user interface is of a design that does
match the users' needs or the way they work.
Traditionally information is entered by filling pre-set
fields, but Pallav (2006) mentioned that a narrative
format is preferred by some doctors, especially some
psychiatric practitioners. Walsh (2004) explains,
"every patient tells a story...", and "the patient is
seen as a page ….and the doctor becomes the author
of stories within the medical record". However, as
Pallav (2006), points out, narrative style might make
design and implementation of EMR more difficult,
both in specific data of patient and the structure of
the data in the system. Standardization of not just
format but also of the exact meaning of pieces of
information becomes a challenge (Altiwajiri, 2010).
IT skills is a major complex problem (Walsh
2004). Devitt and Murphy (2004) stated that doctors
needed to be taught, or to have, information skills,
and Altiwajiri (2010) confirms that there is a general
illiteracy of IT-related issues among health care
people.
As there are many stake-holders in EMR, (Berg
and Bowker, 1997), (Berg, 1997) suggested that
physicians need to be made part of the IS, to
overcome their "learning to type" objections.
Dick and Steen (1991 cited by berg, 1997) draw
attention to costs, and Miller and Sim (2004) argue
that there are financial barriers to the use of EMR.
There are also important legal and ethical issues that
need addressing (Davis and Konikoff, 1998), as well
as, as Berg and Bowker (1996) argued, that potential
of sociological perspectives that has not been
sufficiently recognised.
Ilie, Courtney and Slyke (2007) analysed the
reactance of physicians to usage, and eventual,
acceptance of EMR. Altiwajiri (2010), also shares
this point in Saudi Arabia, where his research was
conducted. Timmons (2003) notes this reaction is
not limited to physicians but also includes nurses.
He finds that resistance is to both the
implementation and use of computer systems, and to
both the ideas and the ways of working of such
systems, and cites Dowling as giving the following
types, or forms, of resistance: passive resistance
(non-cooperation), oral defamation, data sabotage
and refusal to use. Pallav (2006) claims that "many
EMR system[s] are rejected by clinician because
they are not based on a story metaphor".
On the other hand, 'Learning to type' is not just a
matter of training, but an issue of self-belief and
vision for one's work. Physicians argue that
'learning to type' is not they are trained to do.
Altiwajiri (2010)'s study also encountered a
multitude of religious-related issues.
2.3 The Need for a New Approach
The picture given in the literature is one of
confusion, with a wide variety of advantages of
EMR but also a wide variety of problems. Because
of this, Stausberg et al., (2003) suggest that paper-
based and electronic-based patient records are often
used in unison, to support a variety of tasks.
Problems cited by many studies cannot be relied
upon because the research methods used are not
made clear. Few studies give much attention to the
patient, for instance, and Davis & Konikoff (1998)
survey medical students.
Ahmad (2012) argues that the traditional
approaches to IS use in general (of which EMR is
one specific type) cannot address the problems that
really matter to bring about high quality IS use. She
suggested that there are a number of deeper
problems with the way in which traditional
approaches view IS use.
First, the problem is of wrong perspective. Most
discussion of IS use is in terms of what
management, ICT suppliers, academics etc. find
meaningful, rather than in terms of what the users
'on the ground' find meaningful. Altiwajiri's (2010)
study is an example of this. He discusses a range of
issues, including IT-illiteracy, standardization,
resistance and general religious issues, but he
explicitly states that these issues are from the
perspective of the designer, management or
government. According to Ahmad, taking the
perspective of the user is one reason why IS’s failure
is so common. Judging by resistance of nurses, and
some physicians, this is the case in EMR too. This
problem was touched by Timmons's (2003) study,
HEALTHINF2013-InternationalConferenceonHealthInformatics
278