Improving performance in the ED through laboratory information exchange systems

Table 6 Characterization of the LIE user profiles

Context and outcome of LIE use	LIE user profiles			ANOVA F
Context and outcome of LIE use	Group I iEHR-LRV-reliant users (n = 100) Mean	Group II LRV-reliant users (n = 40) Mean	Group III iEHR-reliant users (n = 23) Mean	ANOVA F
Individual characteristics
Gender [0: male, 1: female]	0.57	0.43	0.39	2.0
Age^a	2.7	2.8	2.6	0.3
Clinical experience^b	3.2	3.5	2.9	0.9
Medical practice [0: specialist, 1: generalist]	0.77	0.85	0.83	0.6
Organizational context
Size of the ED^c	2.9	2.6	2.4	3.2*
Location of the ED [0: central/urban, 1: peripheral/rural]	0.26₂	0.70₁	0.39	13.3***
Technological context (LIE capability)
Number of iEHR functionalities available	6	6	6	0.0
Number of LRV functionalities available	3.7₂	4.3₁	1.1₃	47.0***
Number of EDIS functionalities available	0.2	0.0₂	0.8₁	13.3***
Outcomes of LIE use^d
Performance outcome of iEHR use	3.6₁	1.0₂	3.2₁	396.1***
Performance outcome of LRV use	3.5₂	4.1₁	1.6₃	95.7***
Performance outcome of EDIS use	1.3	1.1₂	2.0₁	7.6***

Within rows, different subscripts indicate significant (p < 0.05) pair-wise differences between the means on Tamhane’s T2 (post hoc) test
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
^a1 = 30 years old or younger, 2 = 30–39, 3 = 40–49, 4 = 50–59, and 5 = 60 years old or older
^b1 = 5 years or less, 2 = 5–9, 3 = 10–14, 4 = 15–19, 5 = 20–24, and 6 = 25 years or more
^c1 = 1 EP, 2 = 2–5 EPS, 3 = 6–10 EPs, 4 = 11–20 EPs, and 5 = 21 EPs or more
^dAs perceived by the EP on Likert scales of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

ISSN: 1865-1380