Costs and benefits of health information technology.

Paul G Shekelle, Sally C Morton, Emmett B Keeler
{"title":"Costs and benefits of health information technology.","authors":"Paul G Shekelle, Sally C Morton, Emmett B Keeler","doi":"10.23970/ahrqepcerta132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 132","pages":"1-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781594/pdf/","citationCount":"492","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23970/ahrqepcerta132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 492

Abstract

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.
卫生信息技术的成本和收益。
目的:准备了一份证据报告,以评估关于卫生信息技术(HIT)系统的收益和成本的证据基础,即,在各种医疗保健机构,特别是提供儿科护理的医疗机构中,离散的HIT功能和系统的价值。数据来源:PubMed、Cochrane对照临床试验注册和Cochrane有效性评价数据库(DARE)检索1995年以来发表的文章。还审查了私营工业编写的几份报告。回顾方法:在筛选的855项研究中,有256项纳入最终分析。其中包括系统综述、元分析、检验假设的研究和预测分析。每篇文章由两名审稿人独立评审;分歧以一致意见解决了。结果:在256项研究中,156项涉及决策支持,84项评估电子病历,30项涉及计算机化医单输入(类别并不相互排斥)。124项研究评估了HIT系统在门诊或门诊的效果;82个评估了其在医院或住院环境中的使用情况。97项研究采用随机设计。还有11项其他对照临床试验,33项研究使用前后设计,20项研究使用时间序列。另外17个是具有并发控制的案例研究。在211项假设检验研究中,82项至少包含了一些成本数据。除了少数HIT领导者的研究外,我们没有发现任何研究或研究集合,这些研究或研究集合可以让读者确定研究报告的益处的可推广知识。除了这些来自HIT领导者的研究之外,没有其他研究评估HIT系统具有全面的功能,并包括成本数据、组织环境和流程变化的相关信息以及实施数据。一小部分文献支持HIT在提高儿科护理质量方面的作用。关于执行这种系统的费用或成本效益的数据不足。在四个地点(三个美国医疗中心和一个荷兰医疗中心)进行的一系列小型研究中,证明了电子健康记录(EHRs)提高门诊护理环境护理质量的能力。研究表明,当临床信息管理和决策支持工具在EHR系统中可用时,特别是当EHR能够高保真地存储数据,使这些数据易于访问并帮助将其转化为特定于具体情况的信息时,提供者的绩效得到改善,从而可以增强提供者的工作能力。尽管所使用的分析方法存在异质性,但所有成本效益分析都预测,实施电子病历(以及医疗保健信息交换和互操作性)将节省大量资金:预计可量化的收益将超过投资成本。然而,预计收支平衡所需的时间从3年到13年不等。结论:HIT有可能使卫生保健的提供发生巨大变化,使其更安全、更有效和更高效。一些组织已经通过围绕EHR构建的多功能、可互操作的HIT系统的实施实现了重大收益。然而,由于缺乏关于哪些类型的HIT和实施方法将改善特定卫生组织的护理和管理成本的一般性知识,HIT的广泛实施受到了限制。关于医疗卫生技术发展和实施的报告需要更全面地描述干预措施和实施干预措施的组织/经济环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信