Difference between revisions of "Costs and benefits of health information technology"
(Created page with "==Introduction== The article discussed a literature review of the value of discrete HIT functions and systems in various healthcare settings. They found that some evidence sug...") |
|||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
| − | The article discussed a literature review of the value of discrete HIT functions and systems in various healthcare settings. | + | |
| + | The article discussed a literature review of the value of discrete [[Health information technology]] (HIT) functions and systems in various healthcare settings. The authors found that evidence suggests HIT can improve efficiency, cost-effectiveness, quality, and safety by making best practice guidelines and evidence databases immediately available to clinicians, and by making computerized patient information available throughout a health care network, but little is known about the factors required for community practices to successfully implement off-the-shelf systems. <ref name = “Shekelle”> Shekelle, P. Martin, S., Keeler, E. (2006) Costs and Benefits of Health Information Technology: Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 132. </ref> | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| − | Leap Frog Group, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services | + | |
| + | [http://www.leapfroggroup.org/ Leap Frog Group], Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services [[CMS]], Office of Disease Prevention and Health Research and Quality ODPHP and the [[Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)| Agency for Healthcare Quality (AHRQ)]] [http://www.ahrq.gov/] requested an evidence report on costs and benefits of HIT systems to evaluate the evidence regarding the value of discrete HIT functions and systems in healthcare settings. Key questions were related to: | ||
* What are the costs and benefits of interoperability for providers and payors and what is the critical information required by decision makers | * What are the costs and benefits of interoperability for providers and payors and what is the critical information required by decision makers | ||
* What is the framework for developing level/bundles for functionality by payer/purchase | * What is the framework for developing level/bundles for functionality by payer/purchase | ||
* What analytic methods can be used to produce evidence of cost and benefits for providers and payors | * What analytic methods can be used to produce evidence of cost and benefits for providers and payors | ||
| − | * What are the barriers that providers and systems encounter in implementation of EHR system | + | * What are the barriers that providers and systems encounter in implementation of [[EHR|EHR]] system |
==Method== | ==Method== | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | The authors conducted electronic searches of PubMed, Cochrane Registries and Cochrane Database of Reviews of effectiveness (DARE) and private industry articles published starting from 1995. There were 856 studies screened and 256 were included in the final analysis. | |
| + | |||
==Results== | ==Results== | ||
| − | Of the 256 studies the categories were not mutually exclusive and were categorized as: | + | |
| − | + | Of the 256 studies the categories were not mutually exclusive and were categorized as: <ref name = “Shekelle”> Shekelle, P. Martin, S., Keeler, E. (2006) Costs and Benefits of Health Information Technology: Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 132. </ref> | |
| − | + | * 156 related to [[CDS|decision support]], | |
| − | + | * 84 assessed the [[EMR|Electronic Medical Records (EMRs)]] | |
| − | + | * 30 were about [[CPOE|CPOE]] (categories are not mutually exclusive) | |
| − | + | * 124 assessed the effects on outpatient or ambulatory setting | |
| − | + | * 82 assessed use in the hospital or inpatient setting | |
| − | + | * 97 studies used a randomized design | |
| − | + | * 11 were other [[Randomized controlled trial (RCT)|controlled clinical trails]] | |
| − | + | * 33 used a pre-post design | |
| − | + | * 20 used a time series | |
| − | Of the 211 hypothesis-testing studies reviewed, 82 contained cost data. | + | * 17 were case studies with a concurrent control |
| + | Of the 211 hypothesis-testing studies reviewed, 82 contained cost data. | ||
==Conclusion== | ==Conclusion== | ||
| − | Based on the reviews the authors concluded HIT can help transform the delivery of health care, | + | |
| + | Based on the reviews the authors concluded HIT can help transform the delivery of health care, make safer, more effective, and more efficient. They noted some organizations have realized major gains through the implementation of multifunctional, interoperable HIT systems. The authors also concluded widespread implementation of HIT has been limited by a lack of generalizable knowledge of what types of HIT systems and what implementation methods to utilize. This includes what the cost and benefits of health information technology. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Related Articles== | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Self-Tracking, Social Media and Personal Health Records for Patient Empowered Self-Care]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Medical decision support using machine learning for early detection of late onset neonatal sepsis]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[A detailed description of the implementation of inpatient insulin orders with a commercial electronic health record system.]] | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| − | [[Category: Reviews | + | [[Category: Reviews]] |
| + | [[Category: HIT]] | ||
| + | [[Category: Benefits and Costs]] | ||
| + | [[Category: Evidence Based Medicine (EBM)]] | ||
Latest revision as of 03:48, 22 November 2015
Contents
Introduction
The article discussed a literature review of the value of discrete Health information technology (HIT) functions and systems in various healthcare settings. The authors found that evidence suggests HIT can improve efficiency, cost-effectiveness, quality, and safety by making best practice guidelines and evidence databases immediately available to clinicians, and by making computerized patient information available throughout a health care network, but little is known about the factors required for community practices to successfully implement off-the-shelf systems. [1]
Background
Leap Frog Group, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services CMS, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Research and Quality ODPHP and the Agency for Healthcare Quality (AHRQ) [1] requested an evidence report on costs and benefits of HIT systems to evaluate the evidence regarding the value of discrete HIT functions and systems in healthcare settings. Key questions were related to:
- What are the costs and benefits of interoperability for providers and payors and what is the critical information required by decision makers
- What is the framework for developing level/bundles for functionality by payer/purchase
- What analytic methods can be used to produce evidence of cost and benefits for providers and payors
- What are the barriers that providers and systems encounter in implementation of EHR system
Method
The authors conducted electronic searches of PubMed, Cochrane Registries and Cochrane Database of Reviews of effectiveness (DARE) and private industry articles published starting from 1995. There were 856 studies screened and 256 were included in the final analysis.
Results
Of the 256 studies the categories were not mutually exclusive and were categorized as: [1]
- 156 related to decision support,
- 84 assessed the Electronic Medical Records (EMRs)
- 30 were about CPOE (categories are not mutually exclusive)
- 124 assessed the effects on outpatient or ambulatory setting
- 82 assessed use in the hospital or inpatient setting
- 97 studies used a randomized design
- 11 were other controlled clinical trails
- 33 used a pre-post design
- 20 used a time series
- 17 were case studies with a concurrent control
Of the 211 hypothesis-testing studies reviewed, 82 contained cost data.
Conclusion
Based on the reviews the authors concluded HIT can help transform the delivery of health care, make safer, more effective, and more efficient. They noted some organizations have realized major gains through the implementation of multifunctional, interoperable HIT systems. The authors also concluded widespread implementation of HIT has been limited by a lack of generalizable knowledge of what types of HIT systems and what implementation methods to utilize. This includes what the cost and benefits of health information technology.
Related Articles
Self-Tracking, Social Media and Personal Health Records for Patient Empowered Self-Care
Medical decision support using machine learning for early detection of late onset neonatal sepsis
