Objectives An evidence report was prepared to assess the evidence base regarding benefits and costs of health information technology (HIT) systems, that is, the value of discrete HIT functions and systems in various healthcare settings, particularly those providing pediatric care. Data sources PubMed, the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register, and the Cochrane Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) were electronically searched for articles published since 1995. Several reports prepared by private industry were also reviewed. Review methods Of 855 studies screened, 256 were included in the final analyses. These included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, studies that tested a hypothesis, and predictive analyses. Each article was reviewed independently by two reviewers; disagreement was resolved by consensus. Results Of the 256 studies, 156 concerned decision support, 84 assessed the electronic medical record, and 30 were about computerized physician order entry (categories are not mutually exclusive). One hundred twenty four of the studies assessed the effect of the HIT system in the outpatient or ambulatory setting; 82 assessed its use in the hospital or inpatient setting. Ninety-seven studies used a randomized design. There were 11 other controlled clinical trials, 33 studies using a pre-post design, and 20 studies using a time series. Another 17 were case studies with a concurrent control. Of the 211 hypothesis-testing studies, 82 contained at least some cost data. We identified no study or collection of studies, outside of those from a handful of HIT leaders, that would allow a reader to make a determination about the generalizable knowledge of the study's reported benefit. Beside these studies from HIT leaders, no other research assessed HIT systems that had comprehensive functionality and included data on costs, relevant information on organizational context and process change, and data on implementation. A small body of literature supports a role for HIT in improving the quality of pediatric care. Insufficient data were available on the costs or cost-effectiveness of implementing such systems. The ability of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to improve the quality of care in ambulatory care settings was demonstrated in a small series of studies conducted at four sites (three U.S. medical centers and one in the Netherlands). The studies demonstrated improvements in provider performance when clinical information management and decision support tools were made available within an EHR system, particularly when the EHRs had the capacity to store data with high fidelity, to make those data readily accessible, and to help translate them into context-specific information that can empower providers in their work. Despite the heterogeneity in the analytic methods used, all cost-benefit analyses predicted substantial savings from EHR (and health care information exchange and interoperability) implementation: The quantifiable benefits are projected to outweigh the investment costs. However, the predicted time needed to break even varied from three to as many as 13 years. Conclusions HIT has the potential to enable a dramatic transformation in the delivery of health care, making it safer, more effective, and more efficient. Some organizations have already realized major gains through the implementation of multifunctional, interoperable HIT systems built around an EHR. However, widespread implementation of HIT has been limited by a lack of generalizable knowledge about what types of HIT and implementation methods will improve care and manage costs for specific health organizations. The reporting of HIT development and implementation requires fuller descriptions of both the intervention and the organizational/economic environment in which it is implemented.

/pdf/costs-and-benefits-of-health-information-technology-512cder0m5.pdf

Costs and Benefits of Health Information Technology

A Research Agenda for Personal Health Records (PHRs)

Recent years have witnessed an intensive growth of systems of measurement and an increasing integration of data processes into various spheres of everyday life. From smartphone apps that measure our activity and sleep, to digital devices that monitor our health and performance at the workplace, the culture of measurement is currently on the rise. Encouraged by movements such as the Quantified Self, whose motto is 'self knowledge through numbers', a growing number of people across the globe are embracing practices of self-quantification and tracking in the spirit of improving their wellbeing and productivity or charting their fitness progress. In this article, I examine the biopolitical aspects of the Quantified Self practices, exploring some of the ideologies and rationalities underlying self-tracking culture. I argue that such practices represent an instantiation of a 'biopolitics of the self' whereby the body is made amenable to management and monitoring techniques that often echo the ethos of neoliberalism. Rather than being restricted to an individualized form, self-tracking practices are also becoming part of a biosocial and communal phenomenon in which individuals are incited to share with others information about their physical activities and biodata. In exploring some examples of this data sharing culture, I critically address the extent to which the sharing of personal physical data can be seen as a 'solidaristic' act that can contribute to a larger Big Data ecosystem and inform the wider medical community and healthcare research and policy. I link this discussion to debates on 'data philanthropy', highlighting the emerging tension between philanthropic discourses of data sharing and issues of privacy. From here, I go on to discuss further ethical and political concerns, particularly in relation to data security and the marked shifts in healthcare responsibilities.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2055207616689509

Digital health and the biopolitics of the Quantified Self

Introduction :T raditional strategies to determine hospital bed surge capacity have relied on cross-sectional hospital census data, which underestimate the true surge capacity in the event of a mass-casualty incident. Objective :T o determine hospital bed surge capacity for the County more accurately using physician and nurse manager assessments for the disposition of all in-patients at multiple facilities. Methods :O vernight- and day-shift nurse managers from each in-patient unit at four different hospitals were approached to make assessments for each patient as to their predicted disposition at 2, 24, and 72 hours post-event in the case of a mass-casualty incident, including transfer to a hypothetical, on- site nursing facility. Physicians at the two academic institutions also were approached for comparison. Age, gender, and admission diagnosis also were recorded for each patient. Results :A total of 1,741 assessments of 788 patients by 82 nurse managers and 25 physicians from the four institutions were included. Nurse managers assessed approximately one-third of all patients as dischargeable at 24 hours and approximately one-half at 72 hours; one-quarter of the patients were assessed as being transferable to a hypothetical, on-site nursing facility at both time points. Physicians were more likely than were nurse managers to send patients to such a facility or discharge them, but less likely to transfer patients out of the intensive care unit (ICU). Inter-facility variability was explained by differences in the distribution of patient diagnoses. Conclusions :A large proportion of in-patients can be discharged within 24 and 72 hours in the event of a mass-casualty incident (MCI). Additional beds can be made available if an on-site nursing facility is made available. Both physicians and nurse managers should be included on the team that makes patient dispositions in the event of a MCI.

Hospital bed surge capacity in the event of a mass-casualty incident.

The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine family practice physician and staff views on the benefits of, barriers to, and use of personal health records (PHRs). Four focus groups were conducted at four family medicine practices in Iowa and included a total of 28 providers. Overall, participants seemed to view PHRs as a source of medical information for healthcare providers when the patient's medical record is not available. Providers appeared unaware of the patient-centered features available in many electronic PHRs and how such features might affect patients and their medical practice. While physicians identified numerous patient groups that could benefit from using PHRs, they also perceived several unique barriers, including the potential of PHRs to facilitate narcotic abuse, low levels of patient computer and health literacy, low levels of patient motivation, and difficulties with PHR and electronic medical record interoperability. Physicians' relatively narrow view of PHR functions and benefits and perception of barriers to using PHRs may restrict widespread support of PHR use.

http://perspectives.ahima.org/PDF/Winter_2010/Family_Physician_Perceptions/Family_Physician_Perceptions_of_PHRs_final.pdf

Harry B. Rhodes

Papers

Accessing and using data from wearable fitness devices.

PHR Quandary: Despite the Benefits, Issues of Technology and Trust Slow Adoption

Mitigating medical identity theft.

Practice brief. Document imaging as a bridge to the EHR.

Meaningful use program faces audits, scrutiny.