Search

Background: The digital transformation of health care is advancing rapidly. A well-accepted framework for health care improvement is the Quadruple Aim: improved clinician experience, improved patient experience, improved population health, and reduced health care costs. Hospitals are attempting to improve care by using digital technologies, but the effectiveness of these technologies is often only measured against cost and quality indicators, and less is known about the clinician and patient experience., Objective: This study aims to conduct a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis to assess the clinician and patient experience of digital hospitals., Methods: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and ENTREQ (Enhancing the Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research) guidelines were followed. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched from January 2010 to June 2022. Studies that explored multidisciplinary clinician or adult inpatient experiences of digital hospitals (with a full electronic medical record) were included. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data synthesis was performed narratively for quantitative studies. Qualitative evidence synthesis was performed via (1) automated machine learning text analytics using Leximancer (Leximancer Pty Ltd) and (2) researcher-led inductive synthesis to generate themes., Results: A total of 61 studies (n=39, 64% quantitative; n=15, 25% qualitative; and n=7, 11% mixed methods) were included. Most studies (55/61, 90%) investigated clinician experiences, whereas few (10/61, 16%) investigated patient experiences. The study populations ranged from 8 to 3610 clinicians, 11 to 34,425 patients, and 5 to 2836 hospitals. Quantitative outcomes indicated that clinicians had a positive overall satisfaction (17/24, 71% of the studies) with digital hospitals, and most studies (11/19, 58%) reported a positive sentiment toward usability. Data accessibility was reported positively, whereas adaptation, clinician-patient interaction, and workload burnout were reported negatively. The effects of digital hospitals on patient safety and clinicians' ability to deliver patient care were mixed. The qualitative evidence synthesis of clinician experience studies (18/61, 30%) generated 7 themes: inefficient digital documentation, inconsistent data quality, disruptions to conventional health care relationships, acceptance, safety versus risk, reliance on hybrid (digital and paper) workflows, and patient data privacy. There was weak evidence of a positive association between digital hospitals and patient satisfaction scores., Conclusions: Clinicians' experience of digital hospitals appears positive according to high-level indicators (eg, overall satisfaction and data accessibility), but the qualitative evidence synthesis revealed substantive tensions. There is insufficient evidence to draw a definitive conclusion on the patient experience within digital hospitals, but indications appear positive or agnostic. Future research must prioritize equitable investigation and definition of the digital clinician and patient experience to achieve the Quadruple Aim of health care., (©Oliver J Canfell, Leanna Woods, Yasaman Meshkat, Jenna Krivit, Brinda Gunashanhar, Christine Slade, Andrew Burton-Jones, Clair Sullivan. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 11.03.2024.)

Background: Understanding electronic medical record (EMR) implementation in digital hospitals has focused on retrospective "work as imagined" experiences of multidisciplinary clinicians, rather than "work as done" behaviors. Our research question was "what is the behavior of multidisciplinary clinicians during the transition to a new digital hospital?", Objectives: The aim of the study is to: (1) Observe clinical behavior of multidisciplinary clinicians in a new digital hospital using ethnography. (2) Develop a thematic framework of clinical behavior in a new digital hospital., Methods: The setting was the go-live of a greenfield 182-bed digital specialist public hospital in Queensland, Australia. Participants were multidisciplinary clinicians (allied health, nursing, medical, and pharmacy). Clinical ethnographic observations were conducted between March and April 2021 (approximately 1 month post-EMR implementation). Observers shadowed clinicians in real-time performing a diverse range of routine clinical activities and recorded any clinical behavior related to interaction with the digital hospital. Data were analyzed in two phases: (1) content analysis using machine learning (Leximancer v4.5); (2) researcher-led interpretation of the text analytics to generate contextual meaning and finalize themes., Results: A total of 55 multidisciplinary clinicians (41.8% allied health, 23.6% nursing, 20% medical, 14.6% pharmacy) were observed across 58 hours and 99 individual patient encounters. Five themes were derived: (1) Workflows for clinical documentation; (2) Navigating a digital hospital; (3) Digital efficiencies; (4) Digital challenges; (5) Patient experience. There was no observed harm attributable to the digital transition. Clinicians primarily used blended digital and paper workflows to achieve clinical goals. The EMR was generally used seamlessly. New digital workflows affected clinical productivity and caused frustration. Digitization enabled multitasking, clinical opportunism, and benefits to patient safety; however, clinicians were hesitant to trust digital information., Conclusion: This study improves our real-time understanding of the digital disruption of health care and can guide clinicians, managers, and health services toward digital transformation strategies based upon "work as done.", Competing Interests: None declared., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background: Digital health in hospital settings is viewed as a panacea for achieving the "quadruple aim" of health care, yet the outcomes have been largely inconclusive. To optimize digital health outcomes, a strategic approach is necessary, requiring digital maturity assessments. However, current approaches to assessing digital maturity have been largely insufficient, with uncertainty surrounding the dimensions to assess., Objective: The aim of this study was to identify the current dimensions used to assess the digital maturity of hospitals., Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature (published before December 2020) investigating maturity models used to assess the digital maturity of hospitals. A total of 29 relevant articles were retrieved, representing 27 distinct maturity models. The articles were inductively analyzed, and the maturity model dimensions were extracted and consolidated into a maturity model framework., Results: The consolidated maturity model framework consisted of 7 dimensions: strategy; information technology capability; interoperability; governance and management; patient-centered care; people, skills, and behavior; and data analytics. These 7 dimensions can be evaluated based on 24 respective indicators., Conclusions: The maturity model framework developed for this study can be used to assess digital maturity and identify areas for improvement., (©Rhona Duncan, Rebekah Eden, Leanna Woods, Ides Wong, Clair Sullivan. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 30.03.2022.)

Objective This study investigated evidence for the approach known as 'benefits management' (BM) used in many digital hospital initiatives. Methods A qualitative narrative overview was conducted on the BM literature and compared with a qualitative systematic overview of electronic medical record (EMR) implementation literature. Results Twenty-five articles on BM and 12 literature reviews on EMR implementation were examined. The BM approach does not have strong support in the literature and does not support all the needs of large EMR implementations. Conclusion The current BM approach provides an inadequate basis for managing and reporting on the outcomes that ensue from a digital hospital initiative. A shift is needed from benefits idealisation to value optimisation. What is known about the topic? Health services are under increasing pressure to demonstrate that the benefits anticipated from digital health investments have been realised. What does this paper add? This paper informs the practice of benefits governance in EMR implementations. The results reveal inadequacies in current BM models and practice that are currently enshrined in policy despite a lack of evidence. What are the implications for practitioners? Health service leaders must be willing to question the governance of benefits from health service transformations using more evidence-based approaches to increase the value obtained from investments in digital transformation.

Objective This study provides insights into the reported early impacts of the digital transformation of a large Australian hospital and healthcare service (HHS) by surveying staff perceptions of an integrated electronic medical record (ieMR). Methods The information systems success model was used as a tool to evaluate perceptions of system quality, information quality, individual benefits and expected organisational benefits of the ieMR soon after its introduction at the HHS. A questionnaire was distributed to staff in all five hospitals in the HHS immediately after implementation. Overall staff perceptions were examined, in addition to how perceptions differed by site and profession. Results Overall, staff held mildly positive early perceptions of system quality, information quality, individual benefits and expected organisational benefits. These views were largely consistent across sites. In terms of professions, allied health held more positive perceptions, followed by administrative and nursing professionals. Medical professionals held negative perceptions, but were neutral regarding their future expectations. Conclusion On average, staff viewed the ieMR mildly positively immediately after implementation (despite significant changes to work practices), but differences exist across professional groups. What is known about the topic? Hospitals globally are in the midst of a digital transformation. Yet, reported impacts are mixed and there have been few studies of the effects of comprehensive electronic medical record (EMR) implementations. What does this paper add? This paper evaluates a comprehensive EMR immediately after go-live. We found positive early perceptions of system quality, information quality, individual benefits and expected organisational benefits. We also found that perceptions of medical professionals were largely negative, but they were neutral in terms of their future expectations. What are the implications for practitioners? Health services may be unsure of the effect of implementing a comprehensive EMR because of conflicting reports in the literature, some touting major benefits, others stressing major costs. Our results paint a middle-ground picture immediately after implementation. Staff perceptions are mildly positive on average, which is reassuring given the results were obtained during the early disruptive period after implementation.

Digital transformation of Australian hospitals is occurring rapidly. Although the clinical community has had limited ability to influence high-level decision making and investments into digital health technologies, as these technologies increasingly transform the way patients are cared for, the clinical community must influence the digital health agenda and be an integral part of the decision-making process. This case study details the process and lessons learnt during the development of the state-wide consensus statement detailing the clinical requirements for digital health initiatives to form the Queensland Digital Health Clinical Charter. To the best of our knowledge, Queensland is the first Australian jurisdiction to create a Digital Clinical Charter to be specifically referenced in the investment in and governance of digital health in hospitals. By developing this clinical charter for digital health, and in articulating the needs of clinicians, a clinical framework will be added to both the decision-making process around the investments in digital health and the definition and realisation of the expected benefits from these sizable investments.

The Australian Commission for Safety and Quality in Health Care has created the National Safety and Quality Health Service standards that all hospitals must address in order to remain accredited. This case study details the first known digitisation of the 10 national quality and safety standards mandated in a quaternary integrated digital hospital. A team of clinical informaticians, information technology experts and clinicians was assembled. Data were chosen and the data were then extracted and validated and presented (often in near real time) in an easily consumable dashboard format with appropriate governance to allow clinicians and executives to monitor the quality and safety standards across the hospital. All 10 standards were defined and extracted contemporaneously from the digital hospital for every patient, every time. This is in stark contrast with traditional retrospective point prevalence surveys. This case study details the first known fully digital accreditation in a sophisticated integrated digital hospital. Digitisation of hospital quality and safety to produce real-time data is the future of clinical redesign to improve patient care.

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.

Objective The aim of the present study was to determine the effects of hospital-based eHealth technologies on quality, safety and efficiency of care and clinical outcomes. Methods Systematic reviews and reviews of systematic reviews of eHealth technologies published in PubMed/Medline/Cochrane Library between January 2010 and October 2015 were evaluated. Reviews of implementation issues, non-hospital settings or remote care or patient-focused technologies were excluded from analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using a validated appraisal tool. Outcome measures were benefits and harms relating to electronic medical records (EMRs), computerised physician order entry (CPOE), electronic prescribing (ePrescribing) and computerised decision support systems (CDSS). Results are presented as a narrative overview given marked study heterogeneity. Results Nineteen systematic reviews and two reviews of systematic reviews were included from 1197 abstracts, nine rated as high quality. For EMR functions, there was moderate-quality evidence of reduced hospitalisations and length of stay and low-quality evidence of improved organisational efficiency, greater accuracy of information and reduced documentation and process turnaround times. For CPOE functions, there was moderate-quality evidence of reductions in turnaround times and resource utilisation. For ePrescribing, there was moderate-quality evidence of substantially fewer medications errors and adverse drug events, greater guideline adherence, improved disease control and decreased dispensing turnaround times. For CDSS, there was moderate-quality evidence of increased use of preventive care and drug interaction reminders and alerts, increased use of diagnostic aids, more appropriate test ordering with fewer tests per patient, greater guideline adherence, improved processes of care and less disease morbidity. There was conflicting evidence regarding effects on in-patient mortality and overall costs. Reported harms were alert fatigue, increased technology interaction time, creation of disruptive workarounds and new prescribing errors. Conclusion eHealth technologies in hospital settings appear to improve efficiency and appropriateness of care, prescribing safety and disease control. Effects on mortality, readmissions, total costs and patient and provider experience remain uncertain. What is known about the topic? Healthcare systems internationally are undertaking large-scale digitisation programs with hospitals being a major focus. Although predictive analyses suggest that eHealth technologies have the potential to markedly transform health care delivery, contemporary peer-reviewed research evidence detailing their benefits and harms is limited. What does this paper add? This narrative overview of 19 systematic reviews and two reviews of systematic reviews published over the past 5 years provides a summary of cumulative evidence of clinical and organisational effects of contemporary eHealth technologies in hospital practice. EMRs have the potential to increase accuracy and completeness of clinical information, reduce documentation time and enhance information transfer and organisational efficiency. CPOE appears to improve laboratory turnaround times and decrease resource utilisation. ePrescribing significantly reduces medication errors and adverse drug events. CDSS, especially those used at the point of care and integrated into workflows, attract the strongest evidence for substantially increasing clinician adherence to guidelines, appropriateness of disease and treatment monitoring and optimal medication use. Evidence of effects of eHealth technologies on discrete clinical outcomes, such as morbid events, mortality and readmissions, is currently limited and conflicting. What are the implications for practitioners? eHealth technologies confer benefits in improving quality and safety of care with little evidence of major hazards. Whether EMRs and CPOE can affect clinical outcomes or overall costs in the absence of auxiliary support systems, such as ePrescribing and CDSS, remains unclear. eHealth technologies are evolving rapidly and the evidence base used to inform clinician and managerial decisions to invest in these technologies must be updated continually. More rigorous field research using appropriate evaluation methods is needed to better define real-world benefits and harms. Customisation of eHealth applications to the context of patient-centred care and management of highly complex patients with multimorbidity will be an ongoing challenge.

The digital transformation of hospitals in Australia is occurring rapidly in order to facilitate innovation and improve efficiency. Rapid transformation can cause temporary disruption of hospital workflows and staff as processes are adapted to the new digital workflows. The aim of this paper is to outline various types of digital disruption and some strategies for effective management.Alarge tertiary university hospital recently underwent a rapid, successful roll-out of an integrated electronic medical record (EMR). We observed this transformation and propose several digital disruption "syndromes" to assist with understanding and management during digital transformation: digital deceleration, digital transparency, digital hypervigilance, data discordance, digital churn and post-digital 'depression'. These 'syndromes' are defined and discussed in detail. Successful management of this temporary digital disruption is important to ensure a successful transition to a digital platform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the challenges at the Princess Alexandra Hospital (PAH) in Australia for transforming into an integrated digital tertiary hospital, with topics including the use of electronic medical records (EMR) in the hospital, medical technology management, and the medical care quality.

Background: Early warning tools identify patients at risk of deterioration in hospitals. Electronic medical records in hospitals offer real-time data and the opportunity to automate early warning tools and provide real-time, dynamic risk estimates.Objective: This review describes published studies on the development, validation, and implementation of tools for predicting patient deterioration in general wards in hospitals.Methods: An electronic database search of peer reviewed journal papers from 2008-2020 identified studies reporting the use of tools and algorithms for predicting patient deterioration, defined by unplanned transfer to the intensive care unit, cardiac arrest, or death. Studies conducted solely in intensive care units, emergency departments, or single diagnosis patient groups were excluded.Results: A total of 46 publications were eligible for inclusion. These publications were heterogeneous in design, setting, and outcome measures. Most studies were retrospective studies using cohort data to develop, validate, or statistically evaluate prediction tools. The tools consisted of early warning, screening, or scoring systems based on physiologic data, as well as more complex algorithms developed to better represent real-time data, deal with complexities of longitudinal data, and warn of deterioration risk earlier. Only a few studies detailed the results of the implementation of deterioration warning tools.Conclusions: Despite relative progress in the development of algorithms to predict patient deterioration, the literature has not shown that the deployment or implementation of such algorithms is reproducibly associated with improvements in patient outcomes. Further work is needed to realize the potential of automated predictions and update dynamic risk estimates as part of an operational early warning system for inpatient deterioration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]