Search

BACKGROUND: Health information technology (HIT) is designed to help reduce medical errors and improve quality of care and efficiency by providing the right information for the right patients in the right place at the right time. Nevertheless, substantial variation currently exists in the adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) resulting in differences in hospital HIT capacity. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to examine the impact of different types of multihospital system affiliation on EMR adoption in hospitals in the United States. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional design was used with a sample of 4,017 hospitals in the United States. Secondary data were retrieved from the Health Information and Management Systems Society Analytics Database. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine the impact of multihospital system affiliation on EMR level of adoption. FINDINGS: The mean EMR adoption level varies significantly between independent hospitals and hospitals owned by a system for small hospitals. After adjusting for the number of operating rooms, the number of emergency room visits, and the number of hospital total full-time equivalent staff, small hospitals owned by multihospital systems were associated with 0.25 higher mean EMR adoption level (p < .05) than independent hospitals and no significant relationship was observed for hospitals that were leased/managed by a system. There was no significant effect of multihospital system membership on EMR level of adoption for medium and large hospitals. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Small hospitals owned by multihospital systems had a significantly higher EMR level compared with independent hospitals. These findings have significant implications for small hospitals that are struggling to improve their HIT capacity. Smaller hospitals in ownership arrangements with larger health care systems have an advantage over small independent hospitals in HIT capacity possibly because of the greater availability of capital, access to shared HIT capacity, and other resources including technical expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growth of electronic medical records (EMRs) is driven by the belief that EMRs will significantly improve healthcare providers' performance and reduce healthcare costs. Evidence supporting these beliefs is limited, especially for small rural hospitals. A survey that focused on health information technology (HIT) capacity was administered to all hospitals in Iowa. Structured interviews were conducted with the leadership at 15 critical access hospitals (CAHs) that had implemented EMRs in order to assess the perceived benefits of operational EMRs. The results indicate that most of the hospitals implemented EMRs to improve efficiency, timely access, and quality. Many CAH leaders also viewed EMR implementation as a necessary business strategy to remain viable and improve financial performance. While some reasons reflect external influences, such as perceived future federal mandates, other reasons suggest that the decision was driven by internal forces, including the hospital's culture and the desires of key leaders to embrace HIT. Anticipated benefits were consistent with goals; however, realized benefits were rarely obvious in terms of quantifiable results. These findings expand the limited research on the rationale for implementing EMRs in critical access hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Present an overview of clinical information systems (IS) in hospitals and analyze the level of electronic medical records (EMR) implementation in relation to clinical IS capabilities and organizational characteristics., Methods: We developed a survey instrument measuring clinical IS implementation and classified clinical IS across 5 EMR levels. The survey was administered to hospitals in a state with a large number of rural hospitals (84% response rate)., Findings: Clinical IS were classified across 5 EMR levels, a useful approach for understanding the gaps in clinical IS in hospitals. Almost half (43%) of hospitals in Iowa were at EMR Level 0, with at least 1 of the ancillary systems still absent; 12% were at Level 1 with all 3 ancillary systems in place; 16% were at Level 2 corresponding to an early EMR system; 18% were at Level 3 corresponding to an intermediate EMR system; and 10% were at Level 4 corresponding to an advanced EMR system. In contrast, 22% had no plans for EMR implementation at all. EMR level was lower in critical access hospitals and positively associated with more slack resources and staffed beds. Over a 3-year period, there were increases in ancillary systems and clinical documentation implementation., Conclusions: The survey performed well. There was agreement with published estimates of EMR penetration, sensitivity to change over time, and association with known organizational factors. It is well designed and can be used to map onto a comprehensive classification scheme capturing the EMR level and evaluating progress toward meaningful use., (© 2011 National Rural Health Association.)

Small rural hospitals face considerable financial and personnel resource shortages which hinder their efforts to implement complex health information technology (HIT) systems. A survey on the use of HIT was completed by 85% of Iowa's 82 Critical Access Hospitals (CAH). Analyses indicate that low IT staffing in CAHs is a barrier to implementing HIT solutions. CAHs with fewer staff tend to employ alternative business strategies. There is a clear relationship between having IT staff at a CAH and the types of technologies used. Many CAHs report having difficulty expanding upon HIT functionalities due to the challenges of finding IT staff with healthcare expertise. Most CAHs are in the transition point of planning for or beginning implementation of complex clinical information systems. Strategies for addressing these challenges will need to evolve as the HIT investments by rural hospitals race to keep pace with the goals for the nation.

Critical access hospitals often have limited financial and personnel resources to implement today's healthcare IT solutions. Two CAHs in rural Iowa overcame these obstacles and found innovative ways to implement information technology. These hospitals earned recognition from Hospitals & Health Network's Most Wired Magazine for excellence in business processes, customer service, safety and quality, work force management, and public health and safety. Though the hospitals come from different environments-one is part of a system and the other is independent-both exemplify best practices on how to use healthcare IT solutions; engage clinicians from a community setting in informatics decisions; integrate technology into an organization's strategic directions; and support healthcare IT environments.

Continuing is a national political drive for investments in health care information technology (HIT) that will allow the transformation of health care for quality improvement and cost reduction. Despite several initiatives by the federal government to spur this development, HIT implementation has been limited, particularly in the rural market. The status of technology use in the transformation effort is reviewed by examining electronic medical records (EMRs), analyzing the existing rural environment, identifying barriers and factors affecting their development and implementation, and recommending needed steps to make this transformation occur, particularly in rural communities. A review of the literature for HIT in rural settings indicates that very little progress has been made in the adoption and use of HIT in rural America. Financial barriers and a large number of HIT vendors offering different solutions present significant risks to rural health care providers wanting to invest in HIT. Although evidence in the literature has demonstrated benefits of adopting HIT such as EMRs, important technical, policy, organizational, and financial barriers still exist that prevent the implementation of these systems in rural settings. To expedite the spread of HIT in rural America, federal and state governments along with private payers, who are important beneficiaries of HIT, must make difficult decisions as to who pays for the investment in this technology, along with driving standards, simplifying approaches for reductions in risk, and creating a workable operational plan.

Clinical information systems (CIS) capture clinical data to support more efficient and effective decision making and clinical care delivery. Only a few estimates of CIS availability and use in hospitals are available nationally. The purpose of the current research is to examine differences in CIS availability and use between urban and rural hospitals. A survey addressing this purpose was completed by 74 (63.7%) of Iowa hospitals. Rural hospitals lag behind urban hospitals in terms of many CIS applications. More than 80% of the urban hospitals, but only between 30 and 40% of the rural hospitals, reported using computers to collect basic clinical information for potential use in an electronic medical record (EMR) and computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system. Comparison of CIS within one state's urban and rural hospitals sheds light on variation in clinical support applications, decision support, and electronic medical record "readiness" in these settings.

The manufacturing industry has been using Lean Sigma for years in pursuit of continuous improvement to obtain a competitive advantage. The objectives of these efforts are to use the Lean techniques for reducing cycle times and the Six Sigma concepts for reducing product defects. The Iowa Business Council with several advocates worked with the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics (UIHC) and two other Iowa hospitals to determine whether Lean Sigma is adaptable in healthcare. A team of 15 people at UIHC used the Kaizen Breakthrough Methodology over a five-day period in an aggressive identification and elimination of non-value added activities in Radiology CT scanning. The results exceeded the initial project objectives and indicated that Lean Sigma is applicable in healthcare. Overall, the Lean Sigma project increased revenue by approximately $750,000 per year. The Kaizen process proved to be successful and interesting. Within three days, the team installed new work flow processes. This implementation-oriented approach is what differentiates Lean Sigma from other quality improvement processes.