In summary, physician resistance toward implementation of clinical information systems is a major barrier. Strategies acknowledged under various categories to overwhelm this barrier provide hope to organizations that are eager to take on this adventure. Decision makers carry the chief responsibility to put in advance clear rules to facilitate physicians’ participation in the implementation process to eliminate their later on opposition.

1. 1
Physician resistance as a barrier to implement clinical
information systems
By Dr.Mahboob Khan Phd
Background
Implementation of electronic medical record (EHRs) that contains computer physician order entry
(CPOE) backed with Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) is a vital component of strategies to prevent
medication errors with a significant relative risk reduction of 13% to 99% . A growing body of evidence calls for
its widespread implementation (2). However, implementation of CPOE is slower and more problematic than
anticipated and often poorly integrated, inducing new errors and interfering with users’ usual workflow (3, 4). By
the end of the first quarter of 2010, only 15.2% of US hospitals have implemented CPOE systems (5). Both
qualitative and quantitative studies cited the high cost and physician resistance are the top barriers to
implement clinical information systems (6, 7). While recent financial incentives and penalties through Medicare
and Medicaid toward meaningful use of EHRs are promising solution for the first barrier (8), we need a
comprehensive act toward the second barrier, resistance.
Introduction
Resistance behavior can be defined as a force that acts to stop the progress of new ideas and changes (9, 10).
This behavior can take broad spectrum of manifestations varying from inaction to destructive actions. A four-
level taxonomy, which was proposed by Coestsee (11-13), classified resistance behaviors to apathy, passive
resistance, active resistance and aggressive resistance.
 Apathy: inaction, distance, and lack of interest.
 Passive resistances: delay tactics, excuses, persistence of former behavior, and withdrawal.
 Active resistances: voicing opposite points of view, asking others to intervene or forming coalitions
 Aggressive resistance: infighting, making threats, strikes, boycotts, or sabotage (13).
Solutions
Where there is a change, resistance should be expected. Our aim is not to eradicate it, since we cannot, rather
to alleviate it. Many strategies, which were put forward in the literature, have been applied successfully to
alleviate or overcome physician resistance to adopt clinical information systems. I classified those solutions as
administration, physician, nurse, patient, vendor, system and setting factors. This classification is not inclusive
neither complete separative.
Administration factors
Physicians usually draw a picture of expectorations in their minds about new systems during the pre-
implementation phase. If expected consequences are not met, resistance behaviors will result (13). Therefore,
evolving physicians in system design is critical to success of implementation (14, 15). Moreover, financial
reimbursement for physicians participated in system design is a further benefit. Their contribution should not be
mere virtual rather must demonstrate quick response and follow-through, supported the notation of Clinician-led
project team with information technology professionals (IT) support (14). Classically, the reverse is pursued,

2. 2
where IT professionals lead the project and has supporting clinicians. Identifying physician leaders and
champions can overcome other staff resistance. These leaders can advocate for the new system
implementation and deal with their colleagues concerns in the scene. Also, they would relay users’ concerns to
the implementation team and the vendors (7).
With the implementation of new systems that interfere with clinical workflow, a rise in workload and concomitant
drop of productivity is expected. Typically, six months is needed to gradually reach the pre-implantation
production. To avoid resistance, financial and logistic compensation is the organization responsibility during this
critical period.
Physician factors
Physician duty is to eliminate patients’ suffering and avoid any harm to them. Hence, prioritizing of patient
safety should be above other concerns, such as workload and pecuniary consecrations. Keeping that in mind
with the established evidence of correlation between CPOE implementation and reduction of medical errors (1,
16) should lead physicians to accept CPOE implantation. That can be achieved by well-advised educational
programs in undergraduate, graduate and continuous medical education levels.
Nurse factors
Resident physicians, who are usually rotate from an institute/ department to another, are supposed to be the
main users of CPOE. Nurses should provide continuous assistance to physicians new to learning the new
system to help change ordering patterns and play down resistance (14). CPOE system factors A good CPOE
system is supposed to meet users’ needs and expectations. From the interface view, users prefer easy, web-
based and colored interface the CPOE system (17). Enabling an alternative way to execute physician orders,
esp. in case of emergencies, is a major concern for physicians.
Setting factors
Affording sufficient portals, computers and printers in the setting is an essential requirement before the
implementation of the new system. Additionally, meet the pint-of-care requirement of mobile devices such as
laptops on trolleys, bedside laptops and/or supporting personal digital assistant (PDA) devices access to the
system will increase the physician acceptance. One of the main facilitators of adoption of clinical information
systems is the availability of formative training and round-the-clock technical support (18).
Vendor factors
It is advantageous to choosing vendors that are committed to address physicians´ workflow concerns through
customization and improvement of the CPOE product (6, 7).
Patient factors
Patient satisfaction directly influence physician acceptance. Since the use of computer devices may demand
much of the physician's attention and could disturb the communication with the patient (19, 20), minimal-
attention user interface design is advisable. Patients and clinicians differ substantially on the regard of their
preferred means of communication (21). Therefore, Patient point of view should be involved in the planning and
implementing of clinical information systems. Patient survey and/or patient representatives can achieve that
aspiration. Announcing the implementation of CPOE with accompanying clarification of benefits related to
patients’ safety and privacy will eliminate patients’ annoyance from potential stumbles in the implementation
phase, and subsequently reduce their physicians’ resistance.

3. 3
Conclusion
In summary, physician resistance toward implementation of clinical information systems is a major barrier.
Strategies acknowledged under various categories to overwhelm this barrier provide hope to organizations that
are eager to take on this adventure. Decision makers carry the chief responsibility to put in advance clear rules
to facilitate physicians’ participation in the implementation process to eliminate their later on opposition.
1. Dr.Mahboob Khan MHA,CPHQ Phd Harvard Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Sep-Oct;15(5):585-600.
2. Agrawal A. Medication errors: prevention using information technology systems. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Jun;67(6):681-
6.
3. Massaro T. Introducing physician order entry at a major academic medical center: impact on medical education.
Evaluating the Organizational Impact of Healthcare Information Systems.264-74.
4. Koppel R, Metlay J, Cohen A, Abaluck B, Localio A, Kimmel S, et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems
in facilitating medication errors. Jama. 2005;293(10):1197.
5. Analytics H. EMR adoption model scores. 2010 [cited 2010 May 21, 2010]; Available
from: http://www.himssanalytics.org/stagesGraph.html.
6. Poon EG, Blumenthal D, Jaggi T, Honour MM, Bates DW, Kaushal R. Overcoming the Barriers to the Implementing
Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems in US Hospitals: Perspectives from Senior Management. AMIA 2003
Symposium Proceedings2003. p. 975.
7. Poon E, Blumenthal D, Jaggi T, Honour M, Bates D, Kaushal R. Overcoming barriers to adopting and implementing
computerized physician order entry systems in US hospitals. Health Affairs. 2004;23(4):184.
8. Eichner J. Challenges and Barriers to Clinical Decision Support (CDS) Design and Implementation Experienced in the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality CDS Demonstrations. 2010.
9. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge advanced learner's dictionary. 3rd ed. Cambridge ;: Cambridge University Press;
2008.
10. Summers D. Longman dictionary of contemporary English. New ed. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman; 1987.
11. Coetsee L. A practical model for the management of resistance to change: An analysis of political resistance in South
Africa. International Journal of Public Administration. 1993;16(11):1815-37.
12. Coetsee L. From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly. 1999;23(2):204-22.
13. Lapointe L. A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. Mis Quarterly. 2005;29(3):461-91.
14. Drazen E, Kilbridge P, Metzger J, Turisco F. A primer on physician order entry. Oakland, CA: California HealthCare
Foundation. 2000.
15. Rossos P, Abrams H, Wu R, Bray P. Active Physician Participation Key to Smooth MOE/MAR Rollout. Healthcare
Quarterly. 2006;10(56):58-64.
16. Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To err is human: building a safer health care system. Institute of Medicine, published by
National Academy of Sciences. 1999.
17. Feedback comments from participants in the e-prescribing training workshop. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: King Khalid
University Hospital, King Saud University2008.
18. Jha A, DesRoches C, Campbell E, Donelan K, Rao S, Ferris T, et al. Use of electronic health records in US hospitals. The
New England journal of medicine. 2009;360(16):1628.
19. Alsos OA. Attention and usability issues in mobile health information systems at point-of-care. Stud Health Technol
Inform. 2008;136:877-8.

4. 4
20. Embi P, Yackel T, Logan J, Bowen J, Cooney T, Gorman P. Impacts of computerized physician documentation in a
teaching hospital: perceptions of faculty and resident physicians. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.
2004;11(4):300.
21. Hassol A, Walker J, Kidder D, Rokita K, Young D, Pierdon S, et al. Patient experiences and attitudes about access to a
patient electronic health care record and linked web messaging. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.
2004;11(6):505-13.