These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32570474)

  • 1. User Requirements Meet Large-Scale EHR Suites: Norwegian Preparations for Epic.
    Ellingsen G; Hertzum M
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2020 Jun; 270():703-707. PubMed ID: 32570474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Electronic health record usability: analysis of the user-centered design processes of eleven electronic health record vendors.
    Ratwani RM; Fairbanks RJ; Hettinger AZ; Benda NC
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2015 Nov; 22(6):1179-82. PubMed ID: 26049532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The implementation of an electronic health record: Comparing preparations for Epic in Norway with experiences from the UK and Denmark.
    Hertzum M; Ellingsen G
    Int J Med Inform; 2019 Sep; 129():312-317. PubMed ID: 31445272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Persuasion Tactics in the Implementation of Large-Scale EHR Suites in Public Healthcare.
    Ellingsen G; Christensen B; Hertzum M
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2021 Nov; 286():33-37. PubMed ID: 34755686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A framework for evaluating electronic health record vendor user-centered design and usability testing processes.
    Ratwani RM; Zachary Hettinger A; Kosydar A; Fairbanks RJ; Hodgkins ML
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2017 Apr; 24(e1):e35-e39. PubMed ID: 27375292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. What do electronic health record vendors reveal about their products: an analysis of vendor websites.
    Yeung NK; Jadad AR; Shachak A
    J Med Internet Res; 2013 Feb; 15(2):e36. PubMed ID: 23422722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Large-Scale EHR Suites and Path-Dependence.
    Ellingsen G; Hertzum M; Christensen B; Wynn R
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2022 Jun; 295():372-375. PubMed ID: 35773888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. National Integration Components Challenge the Epic Implementation in Central Norway.
    Ellingsen G; Hertzum M; Christensen B; Wynn R
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2022 May; 294():500-504. PubMed ID: 35612130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Advancing electronic health record vendor usability maturity: Progress and next steps.
    Hettinger AZ; Melnick ER; Ratwani RM
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2021 Apr; 28(5):1029-1031. PubMed ID: 33517394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Relationship between electronic health records strategy and user satisfaction: a longitudinal study using clinicians' online reviews.
    Srivastava A; Ayyalasomayajula S; Bao C; Ayabakan S; Delen D
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2022 Aug; 29(9):1577-1583. PubMed ID: 35640010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Configuring Secretarial Workflows in the Epic EHR Suite.
    Ellingsen G; Hertzum M; Anthun KS; Melby L
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2023 Jun; 304():47-51. PubMed ID: 37347567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. End-user support for a primary care electronic medical record: a qualitative case study of a vendor's perspective.
    Shachak A; Barnsley J; Montgomery C; Tu K; Jadad AR; Lemieux-Charles L
    Inform Prim Care; 2012; 20(3):185-95. PubMed ID: 23710843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Barriers to comparing the usability of electronic health records.
    Ratwani RM; Hettinger AZ; Fairbanks RJ
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2017 Apr; 24(e1):e191-e193. PubMed ID: 27572813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Anything but engaged: user involvement in the context of a national electronic health record implementation.
    Cresswell K; Morrison Z; Crowe S; Robertson A; Sheikh A
    Inform Prim Care; 2011; 19(4):191-206. PubMed ID: 22828574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. User Satisfaction with Recently Deployed Electronic Health Records.
    Lintvedt O; Marco-Ruiz L; Pedersen R
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2023 May; 302():192-196. PubMed ID: 37203645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Quantifying the competitiveness of the electronic health record market and its implications for interoperability.
    Sorace J; Wong HH; DeLeire T; Xu D; Handler S; Garcia B; MaCurdy T
    Int J Med Inform; 2020 Apr; 136():104037. PubMed ID: 32000012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Open-source electronic health record systems: A systematic review of most recent advances.
    Shaikh M; Vayani AH; Akram S; Qamar N
    Health Informatics J; 2022; 28(2):14604582221099828. PubMed ID: 35588400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Implications of an emerging EHR monoculture for hospitals and healthcare systems.
    Koppel R; Lehmann CU
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2015 Mar; 22(2):465-71. PubMed ID: 25342181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Wireless transfer of sensor data into electronic health records.
    Walseth OA; Arsand E; Sund T; Skipenes E
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2005; 116():334-9. PubMed ID: 16160281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Better Bridges, Better Systems.
    Berlin J
    Tex Med; 2015 Sep; 111(9):39-43. PubMed ID: 26360338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.