1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Effects of eHealth on hospital practice: synthesis of the current literature

      , , , ,
      Australian Health Review
      CSIRO Publishing

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective The transition to digital hospitals is fast-moving. Although US hospitals are further ahead than some others in implementing eHealth technologies, their early experiences are not necessarily generalisable to contemporary healthcare because both the systems and technologies have been rapidly evolving. It is important to provide up-to-date assessments of the evidence available. The aim of this paper is to provide an assessment of the current literature on the effects to be expected from hospital implementations of eHealth technologies. Methods A narrative review was conducted of systematic reviews investigating the effects of eHealth technologies (clinical decision support systems (CDSS), computerised provider order entry (CPOE), ePrescribing, electronic medical records (EMRs)) published between November 2015 and August 2017 and compared the findings with those of a previous narrative review that examined studies published between January 2010 and October 2015. The same search strategy and selection criteria were used in both studies. Results Of the seven relevant articles, three (42.9%) examined the effects of more than one eHealth system: only two (28.6%) studies were high quality, three (42.9%) were of intermediate quality and two (28.6%) were of low quality. We identified that EMRs are largely associated with conflicting findings. Previous reviews suggested that CPOE are associated with significant positive results of cost savings, organisational efficiency gains, less resource utilisation and improved individual performance. However, these effects were not investigated in the more recent reviews, and only mixed findings for communication between clinicians were reported. Similarly, for ePrescribing, later reviews reported limited evidence of benefits, although when coupled with CDSS, more consistent positive findings were reported. Conclusion This overview can help inform other hospitals in Australia and elsewhere of the likely effects resulting from eHealth technologies. The findings suggest that the effects of these systems are largely mixed, but there are positive findings, which encourage ongoing digital transformation of hospital practice. What is known about the topic? Governments are increasingly devoting substantial resources towards implementing eHealth technologies in hospital practice with the goals of improving clinical and financial outcomes. Yet, these outcomes are yet to be fully realised in practice and conflicting findings are often reported in the literature. What does this paper add? This paper extends a previous narrative review of systematic reviews and categorises the effects of eHealth technologies into a typology of outcomes to enable overall findings to be reported and comparisons to be made. In doings so, we synthesise 7 years of eHealth effects. Mixed results are largely reported for EMRs, with many benefits being compromised by practices stemming from resistance to EMRs. Limited evidence of effectiveness exists for CPOE and ePrescribing. CDSS are associated with the most consistent positive findings for clinician- and hospital-level effects. We observed renewed interest in the literature for the effect of eHealth technologies on communication both between clinicians and with patients. Other new insights have emerged relating to effects on clinical judgement, changing practice and staff retention. What are the implications for practitioners? eHealth technologies have the potential to positively affect clinical and financial outcomes. However, these benefits are not guaranteed, and mixed results are often reported. This highlights the need for hospitals and decision makers to clearly identify and act on the drivers of successful implementations if eHealth technologies are to facilitate the creation of new, more effective models of patient care in an increasingly complex healthcare environment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes.

          Although prior research indicates that features of clinician-patient communication can predict health outcomes weeks and months after the consultation, the mechanisms accounting for these findings are poorly understood. While talk itself can be therapeutic (e.g., lessening the patient's anxiety, providing comfort), more often clinician-patient communication influences health outcomes via a more indirect route. Proximal outcomes of the interaction include patient understanding, trust, and clinician-patient agreement. These affect intermediate outcomes (e.g., increased adherence, better self-care skills) which, in turn, affect health and well-being. Seven pathways through which communication can lead to better health include increased access to care, greater patient knowledge and shared understanding, higher quality medical decisions, enhanced therapeutic alliances, increased social support, patient agency and empowerment, and better management of emotions. Future research should hypothesize pathways connecting communication to health outcomes and select measures specific to that pathway. Clinicians and patients should maximize the therapeutic effects of communication by explicitly orienting communication to achieve intermediate outcomes (e.g., trust, mutual understanding, adherence, social support, self-efficacy) associated with improved health.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            STARE-HI--Statement on reporting of evaluation studies in Health Informatics.

            Development of guidelines for publication of evaluation studies of Health Informatics applications. An initial list of issues to be addressed in reports on evaluation studies was drafted based on experiences as editors and reviewers of journals in Health Informatics and as authors of systematic reviews of Health Informatics studies, taking into account guidelines for reporting of medical research. This list has been discussed in several rounds by an increasing number of experts in Health Informatics evaluation during conferences and by using e-mail and has been put up for comments on the web. A set of STARE-HI principles to be addressed in papers describing evaluations of Health Informatics interventions is presented. These principles include formulation of title and abstract, of introduction (e.g. scientific background, study objectives), study context (e.g. organizational setting, system details), methods (e.g. study design, outcome measures), results (e.g. study findings, unexpected observations) and discussion and conclusion of an IT evaluation paper. A comprehensive list of principles relevant for properly describing Health Informatics evaluations has been developed. When manuscripts submitted to Health Informatics journals and general medical journals adhere to these aspects, readers will be better positioned to place the studies in a proper context and judge their validity and generalisability. It will also be possible to judge better whether papers will fit in the scope of meta-analyses of Health Informatics interventions. STARE-HI may also be used for study planning and hence positively influence the quality of evaluation studies in Health Informatics. We believe that better publication of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation studies is an important step toward the vision of evidence-based Health Informatics. This study is based on experiences from editors, reviewers, authors of systematic reviews and readers of the scientific literature. The applicability of the principles has not been evaluated in real practice. Only when authors start to use these principles for reporting, shortcomings in the principles will emerge.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Technology induced error and usability: the relationship between usability problems and prescription errors when using a handheld application.

              This paper describes an innovative approach to the evaluation of a handheld prescription writing application. Participants (10 physicians) were asked to perform a series of tasks involving entering prescriptions into the application from a medication list. The study procedure involved the collection of data consisting of transcripts of the subjects who were asked to "think aloud" while interacting with the prescription writing program to enter medications. All user interactions with the device were video and audio recorded. Analysis of the protocols was conducted in two phases: (1) usability problems were identified from coding of the transcripts and video data, (2) actual errors in entering prescription data were also identified. The results indicated that there were a variety of usability problems, with most related to interface design issues. In examining the relationship between usability problems and errors, it was found that certain types of usability problems were closely associated with the occurrence of specific types of errors in prescription of medications. Implications for identifying and predicting technology-induced error are discussed in the context of improving the safety of health care information systems.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Australian Health Review
                Aust. Health Review
                CSIRO Publishing
                0156-5788
                2018
                2018
                : 42
                : 5
                : 568
                Article
                10.1071/AH17255
                29986809
                136d7b06-9f61-4021-86bf-76e035ad0260
                © 2018
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article