Dataset Information

Is There Evidence of Cost Benefits of Electronic Medical Records, Standards, or Interoperability in Hospital Information Systems? Overview of Systematic Reviews.

ABSTRACT: Electronic health (eHealth) interventions may improve the quality of care by providing timely, accessible information about one patient or an entire population. Electronic patient care information forms the nucleus of computerized health information systems. However, interoperability among systems depends on the adoption of information standards. Additionally, investing in technology systems requires cost-effectiveness studies to ensure the sustainability of processes for stakeholders.The objective of this study was to assess cost-effectiveness of the use of electronically available inpatient data systems, health information exchange, or standards to support interoperability among systems.An overview of systematic reviews was conducted, assessing the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and IEEE Library databases to identify relevant studies published through February 2016. The search was supplemented by citations from the selected papers. The primary outcome sought the cost-effectiveness, and the secondary outcome was the impact on quality of care. Independent reviewers selected studies, and disagreement was resolved by consensus. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR).The primary search identified 286 papers, and two papers were manually included. A total of 211 were systematic reviews. From the 20 studies that were selected after screening the title and abstract, 14 were deemed ineligible, and six met the inclusion criteria. The interventions did not show a measurable effect on cost-effectiveness. Despite the limited number of studies, the heterogeneity of electronic systems reported, and the types of intervention in hospital routines, it was possible to identify some preliminary benefits in quality of care. Hospital information systems, along with information sharing, had the potential to improve clinical practice by reducing staff errors or incidents, improving automated harm detection, monitoring infections more effectively, and enhancing the continuity of care during physician handoffs.This review identified some benefits in the quality of care but did not provide evidence that the implementation of eHealth interventions had a measurable impact on cost-effectiveness in hospital settings. However, further evidence is needed to infer the impact of standards adoption or interoperability in cost benefits of health care; this in turn requires further research.

SUBMITTER: Reis ZSN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5596299 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is There Evidence of Cost Benefits of Electronic Medical Records, Standards, or Interoperability in Hospital Information Systems? Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Reis Zilma Silveira Nogueira ZSN Maia Thais Abreu TA Marcolino Milena Soriano MS Becerra-Posada Francisco F Novillo-Ortiz David D Ribeiro Antonio Luiz Pinho ALP

JMIR medical informatics 20170829 3

<h4>Background</h4>Electronic health (eHealth) interventions may improve the quality of care by providing timely, accessible information about one patient or an entire population. Electronic patient care information forms the nucleus of computerized health information systems. However, interoperability among systems depends on the adoption of information standards. Additionally, investing in technology systems requires cost-effectiveness studies to ensure the sustainability of processes for stak ...[more]

PMID: 28851681

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlcohol misuse is an important cause of premature disability and death. While clinicians are recommended to ask patients about alcohol use and provide brief interventions and specialist referral, this is poorly implemented in routine practice. We undertook a national consultation to ascertain the appropriateness of proposed standards for recording information about alcohol use in electronic health records (EHRs) in the UK and to identify potential barriers and facilitators to their implementation in practice.MethodsA wide range of stakeholders in the UK were consulted about the appropriateness of proposed information standards for recording alcohol use in EHRs via a multi-disciplinary stakeholder workshop and online survey. Responses to the survey were thematically analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsThirty-one stakeholders participated in the workshop and 100 in the online survey. This included patients and carers, healthcare professionals, researchers, public health specialists, informaticians, and clinical information system suppliers. There was broad consensus that the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questionnaires were appropriate standards for recording alcohol use in EHRs but that the standards should also address interventions for alcohol misuse. Stakeholders reported a number of factors that might influence implementation of the standards, including having clear care pathways and an implementation guide, sharing information about alcohol use between health service providers, adequately resourcing the implementation process, integrating alcohol screening with existing clinical pathways, having good clinical information systems and IT infrastructure, providing financial incentives, having sufficient training for healthcare workers, and clinical leadership and engagement. Implementation of the standards would need to ensure patients are not stigmatised and that patient confidentiality is robustly maintained.ConclusionsA wide range of stakeholders agreed that use of AUDIT-C and AUDIT are appropriate standards for recording alcohol use in EHRs in addition to recording interventions for alcohol misuse. The findings of this consultation will be used to develop an appropriate information model and implementation guide. Further research is needed to pilot the standards in primary and secondary care.

Project description:BackgroundAs the availability of interoperable electronic health records (iEHRs) or health information exchanges (HIEs) continues to increase, there is greater need and opportunity to assess the current evidence base on what works and what does not regarding the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs.ObjectiveThe purpose of this project is to assess the international evidence base on the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review, searching multiple databases-MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)-with supplemental searches conducted in Google Scholar and grey literature sources (ie, Google, Grey Literature Report, and OpenGrey). All searches were conducted in January and February 2017. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, were published from 2006 to 2017, and were either an original research study or a literature review. In order to be included, articles needed to focus on iEHRs and HIEs across multiple health care settings, as well as on the impact and effectiveness of iEHR adoption and use.ResultsWe included 130 articles in the synthesis (113 primary studies, 86.9%; 17 reviews, 13.1%), with the majority focused on the United States (88/130, 67.7%). The primary studies focused on a wide range of health care settings; the three most prevalent settings studied included acute care (59/113, 52.2%), primary care (44/113, 38.9%), and emergency departments (34/113, 30.1%). We identified 29 distinct measurement items in the 113 primary studies that were linked to 522 specific measurement outcomes. Productivity and quality were the two evaluation dimensions that received the most attention, accounting for 14 of 29 (48%) measurement items and 306 of 522 (58.6%) measurement outcomes identified. Overall, the majority of the 522 measurement outcomes were positive (298/522, 57.1%). We also identified 17 reviews on iEHR use and impact, 6 (35%) that focused on barriers and facilitators to adoption and implementation and 11 (65%) that focused on benefits and impacts, with the more recent reviews finding little generalizable evidence of benefit and impact.ConclusionsThis review captures the status of an evolving and active field focused on the use and impact of iEHRs. While the overall findings suggest many positive impacts, the quality of the primary studies were not evaluated systematically. When broken down by specific measurement item, the results directed attention both to measurement outcomes that were consistently positive and others that were mostly negative or equivocal.

Project description:Background: In recent years, systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for psoriasis have continuously emerged. Their methods and evidence quality, however, are yet to be evaluated, and whether their conclusions can provide clinicians with reliable evidence is still debatable. Objectives: This overview aims to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, and reporting quality of relevant SRs/MAs, as well as the current evidence of CHM for treating psoriasis. Methods: We searched nine electronic databases from their respective time of establishment to January 20, 2021, as well as the reference lists of the included SRs/MAs, protocol registries, and gray literature. Two reviewers independently used the following: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs. Results: This review included 14 SRs/MAs involving 45 outcomes, of which 12 (85.71%) SRs/MAs had a very low quality evaluated by AMSTAR 2 and 7 (50.00%) SRs/MAs had a high risk of bias assessed by ROBIS. The protocol and registration and funding statements were the major reporting flaws according to the PRISMA checklist. The evaluation with the GRADE system demonstrated no outcome of high-quality evidence, and inconsistent efficacy evaluations were found in this overview. Only 15 (33.33%) outcomes were moderate-quality evidence, supporting the claim that CHM plus Western medicine (WM) was superior to WM. Generally low quality of evidence showed no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the combined therapy and WM. However, the conclusion that CHM was superior to WM cannot be drawn due to the inconsistent results. Conclusion: Despite that CHM has the potential benefit and safety in the adjuvant treatment of psoriasis, the conclusion should be treated with caution because of the generally low quality of methodology and evidence. In the future, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be carried out, and the quality of relevant SRs should also be improved to promote their clinical application.

Project description:BackgroundAdverse drug events (ADEs) occurring in hospital inpatients can have serious implications. The ability to identify and prioritize patients at higher risk of ADEs could help pharmacists to optimize their impact as members of the patient care team.ObjectiveTo identify risk factors, patient characteristics, and medications associated with a higher likelihood of ADEs in adult inpatients through an overview of reviews on this topic.Data sourcesSystematic reviews and narrative reviews or guidelines identified through a search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (limited to articles published from 1995 to June 4, 2015), as well as a grey literature search.Study selection and data extractionFor inclusion in this overview, a review had to discuss patient characteristics or risk factors associated with ADEs, medications associated with ADEs, or drug-drug interactions associated with ADEs, in adult inpatients. Articles retrieved by the literature search were screened for eligibility by a single reviewer.Data synthesisEleven articles were deemed eligible for inclusion in this overview: 4 systematic reviews and 7 narrative reviews or guidelines. Their results were described narratively. Older age and polypharmacy were the most frequently cited risk factors associated with ADEs in hospital inpatients. Renal impairment, female sex, and decline in cognition were also frequently reported as being associated with ADEs. Medication classes reported to be associated with ADEs during the hospital stay included anticoagulants, anti-infectives/antibiotics, antidiabetic agents, analgesics (including opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), and cardiovascular drugs (including antihypertensive agents, diuretics, and digoxin). Two publications reported on preventable ADEs in hospital inpatients; the medications associated with preventable ADEs were consistent with those reported above.ConclusionsThe risk factors, patient characteristics, and medication classes highlighted in this overview may help clinicians to prioritize patient populations who may be at higher risk of ADEs.

Dataset Information

Is There Evidence of Cost Benefits of Electronic Medical Records, Standards, or Interoperability in Hospital Information Systems? Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Publications

Is There Evidence of Cost Benefits of Electronic Medical Records, Standards, or Interoperability in Hospital Information Systems? Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets