Both quantitative and qualitative data analyses were conducted in this study. Pearson’s Chi-square test was used to identify differences between the four groups of the RAC homes –those that used EHR systems or used paper records in meeting or not meeting aged care accreditation standards. The level of significance was set at p = 0.05.
Qualitative content analysis was conducted to identify and classify the indicators for not meeting accreditation Outcome 1.8 Information Systems. This enabled us to identify the statements that described the reasons for failing to meet this out-come. We compared these statements with the contributions of EHR to residential aged care suggested by the previous studies.
Risk Management Impact france phone code EHR Aged Care: Results
Thirteen RAC homes were found to not meet one or more accreditation standards. These RAC homes and the relevant accreditation outcomes that at least one RAC home did not meet are listed in Table 2.
Difference in Meeting Accreditation Standards between RAC Homes Using EHR and Those Using Paper Records
Of the 2,754 RAC homes audited, 1,031 (37.4%) used an EHR system for client health and personal care information management and 1,723 (62.6%) used only paper records. Only 13 homes (0.5%) failed to meet one or more of the 44 accreditation outcomes. One of these homes used an EHR system and met requirements for Outcome 1.8. Of the twelve homes that used paper records, nine failed in Outcome 1.8 (see Fig. 3).
The result of the Chi square test suggested that the proportion of RAC homes using EHR that met accreditation standards (99.9%) was significantly higher than that of their counterparts using paper records (99.3%, p = 0.026).