Search

BackgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) are a central feature of care delivery in acute care hospitals; however, the financial and quality outcomes associated with system performance remain unclear. ObjectiveIn this study, we aimed to evaluate the association between the top 3 EHR vendors and measures of hospital financial and quality performance. MethodsThis study evaluated 2667 hospitals with Cerner, Epic, or Meditech as their primary EHR and considered their performance with regard to net income, Hospital Value–Based Purchasing Total Performance Score (TPS), and the unweighted subdomains of efficiency and cost reduction; clinical care; patient- and caregiver-centered experience; and patient safety. We hypothesized that there would be a difference among the 3 vendors for each measure. ResultsNone of the EHR systems were associated with a statistically significant financial relationship in our study. Epic was positively associated with TPS outcomes (R2=23.6%; β=.0159, SE 0.0079; P=.04) and higher patient perceptions of quality (R2=29.3%; β=.0292, SE 0.0099; P=.003) but was negatively associated with patient safety quality scores (R2=24.3%; β=−.0221, SE 0.0102; P=.03). Cerner and Epic were positively associated with improved efficiency (R2=31.9%; Cerner: β=.0330, SE 0.0135, P=.01; Epic: β=.0465, SE 0.0133, P

BackgroundComputerized decision support systems (CDSSs) are software programs that support the decision making of practitioners and other staff. Other reviews have analyzed the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient outcomes. These reviews reported positive practitioner performance in over half the articles analyzed, but very little information was found for patient outcomes. ObjectiveThe purpose of this review was to analyze the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient medical outcomes. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were queried. MethodsArticles were chosen based on year published (last 10 years), high quality, peer-reviewed sources, and discussion of the relationship between the use of CDSS as an intervention and links to practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers used an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation) to collect information on the relationship between CDSSs and practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers also collected observations of participants, intervention, comparison with control group, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) along with those showing implicit bias. Articles were analyzed by multiple reviewers following the Kruse protocol for systematic reviews. Data were organized into multiple tables for analysis and reporting. ResultsThemes were identified for both practitioner performance (n=38) and medical outcomes (n=36). A total of 66% (25/38) of articles had occurrences of positive practitioner performance, 13% (5/38) found no difference in practitioner performance, and 21% (8/38) did not report or discuss practitioner performance. Zero articles reported negative practitioner performance. A total of 61% (22/36) of articles had occurrences of positive patient medical outcomes, 8% (3/36) found no statistically significant difference in medical outcomes between intervention and control groups, and 31% (11/36) did not report or discuss medical outcomes. Zero articles found negative patient medical outcomes attributed to using CDSSs. ConclusionsResults of this review are commensurate with previous reviews with similar objectives, but unlike these reviews we found a high level of reporting of positive effects on patient medical outcomes.

BackgroundThe protocol in this manuscript was designed to help graduate students publish. It is the result of a challenge from our provost in 2013. I developed this protocol over the last 6 years and have exercised the protocol for the last 5 years. The current version of the protocol has remained mostly static for the last 2 years—only small changes have been made to the process. ObjectiveThe objective of this protocol is to enable students to learn a valuable skill of conducting a systematic review and to write the review in a way that can be published. I have designed the protocol to fit into the schedule of a traditional semester, but also used it in compressed semesters. MethodsAn image map was created in HTML 5.0 and imported into a learning management system. It augments traditional instruction by providing references to published articles, examples, and previously recorded instructional videos. Students use the image map outside the classroom after traditional instruction. The image map helps students create manuscripts that follow established practice and are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and whose authorship follows guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. ResultsSince its inception, this protocol has helped 77 students publish 27 systematic reviews in nine journals worldwide. Some manuscripts take multiple years to progress through multiple review processes at multiple journals submitted in sequence. Two other professors in the School of Health Administration have used this protocol in their classes. ConclusionsSo far, this method has helped 51% of graduate students who used it in my graduate courses publish articles (with more manuscripts under consideration whose numbers have remained uncounted in this sum). I wish success to others who might use this protocol.

BackgroundThe Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act imposes pressure on health care organizations to qualify for “Meaningful Use”. It is assumed that portals should increase patient participation in medical decisions, but whether or not the use of portals improves outcomes remains to be seen. ObjectiveThe purpose of this systemic review is to outline and summarize study results on the effect of patient portals on quality, or chronic-condition outcomes as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and its implications to Meaningful Use since the beginning of 2011. This review updates and builds on the work by Ammenwerth, Schnell-Inderst, and Hoerbst. MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. We identified any data-driven study, quantitative or qualitative, that examined a relationship between patient portals, or patient portal features, and outcomes. We also wanted to relate the findings back to Meaningful Use criteria. Over 4000 articles were screened, and 27 were analyzed and summarized for this systematic review. ResultsWe identified 26 studies and 1 review, and we summarized their findings and applicability to our research question. Very few studies associated use of the patient portal, or its features, to improved outcomes; 37% (10/27) of papers reported improvements in medication adherence, disease awareness, self-management of disease, a decrease of office visits, an increase in preventative medicine, and an increase in extended office visits, at the patient’s request for additional information. The results also show an increase in quality in terms of patient satisfaction and customer retention, but there are weak results on medical outcomes. ConclusionsThe results of this review demonstrate that more health care organizations today offer features of a patient portal than in the review published in 2011. Articles reviewed rarely analyzed a full patient portal but instead analyzed features of a portal such as secure messaging, as well as disease management and monitoring. The ability of patients to be able to view their health information electronically meets the intent of Meaningful Use, Stage 2 requirements, but the ability to transmit to a third party was not found in the review.

BackgroundPatient portals provide patients with the tools to better manage and understand their health status. However, widespread adoption of patient portals faces resistance from patients and providers for a number of reasons, and there is limited evidence evaluating the characteristics of patient portals that received positive remarks from patients and providers. ObjectiveThe objectives of this systematic review are to identify the shared characteristics of portals that receive favorable responses from patients and providers and to identify the elements that patients and providers believe need improvement. MethodsThe authors conducted a systematic search of the CINAHL and PubMed databases to gather data about the use of patient portals in the management of chronic disease. Two reviewers analyzed the articles collected in the search process in order remove irrelevant articles. The authors selected 27 articles to use in the literature review. ResultsResults of this systematic review conclude that patient portals show significant improvements in patient self-management of chronic disease and improve the quality of care provided by providers. The most prevalent positive attribute was patient-provider communication, which appeared in 10 of 27 articles (37%). This was noted by both patients and providers. The most prevalent negative perceptions are security (concerns) and user-friendliness, both of which occurred in 11 of 27 articles (41%). The user-friendliness quality was a concern for patients and providers who are not familiar with advanced technology and therefore find it difficult to navigate the patient portal. The high cost of installation and maintenance of a portal system, not surprisingly, deters some providers from implementing such technology into their practice, but this was only mentioned in 3 of the 27 articles (11%). It is possible that the incentives for meaningful use assuage the barrier of cost. ConclusionsThis systematic review revealed mixed attitudes from patients and their providers regarding the use of patient portals to manage their chronic disease. The authors suggest that a standard patient portal design providing patients with the resources to understand and manage their chronic conditions will promote the adoption of patient portals in health care organizations.

BackgroundThe Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) allocated $19.2 billion to incentivize adoption of the electronic health record (EHR). Since 2009, Meaningful Use Criteria have dominated information technology (IT) strategy. Health care organizations have struggled to meet expectations and avoid penalties to reimbursements from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Organizational theories attempt to explain factors that influence organizational change, and many theories address changes in organizational strategy. However, due to the complexities of the health care industry, existing organizational theories fall short of demonstrating association with significant health care IT implementations. There is no organizational theory for health care that identifies, groups, and analyzes both internal and external factors of influence for large health care IT implementations like adoption of the EHR. ObjectiveThe purpose of this systematic review is to identify a full-spectrum of both internal organizational and external environmental factors associated with the adoption of health information technology (HIT), specifically the EHR. The result is a conceptual model that is commensurate with the complexity of with the health care sector. MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search in PubMed (restricted to English), EBSCO Host, and Google Scholar for both empirical studies and theory-based writing from 1993-2013 that demonstrated association between influential factors and three modes of HIT: EHR, electronic medical record (EMR), and computerized provider order entry (CPOE). We also looked at published books on organizational theories. We made notes and noted trends on adoption factors. These factors were grouped as adoption factors associated with various versions of EHR adoption. ResultsThe resulting conceptual model summarizes the diversity of independent variables (IVs) and dependent variables (DVs) used in articles, editorials, books, as well as quantitative and qualitative studies (n=83). As of 2009, only 16.30% (815/4999) of nonfederal, acute-care hospitals had adopted a fully interoperable EHR. From the 83 articles reviewed in this study, 16/83 (19%) identified internal organizational factors and 9/83 (11%) identified external environmental factors associated with adoption of the EHR, EMR, or CPOE. The conceptual model for EHR adoption associates each variable with the work that identified it. ConclusionsCommonalities exist in the literature for internal organizational and external environmental factors associated with the adoption of the EHR and/or CPOE. The conceptual model for EHR adoption associates internal and external factors, specific to the health care industry, associated with adoption of the EHR. It becomes apparent that these factors have some level of association, but the association is not consistently calculated individually or in combination. To better understand effective adoption strategies, empirical studies should be performed from this conceptual model to quantify the positive or negative effect of each factor.

Competency mapping in higher education is not a new technique for curriculum development. Competency-based curriculum in health care administration programs has appeared in the literature every few years. Texas State University has taught a bachelor's in health administration (BHA) and a master's in health administration (MHA) for decades and recently wanted to validate its curriculum. Professors began with one course, the management of health information technology (HIT). We had two objectives with this work: What are the current health care information technology competencies required of health care administrators? Is the quality and depth of the current HIT curriculum sufficient? A competency-mapping exercise was used for the first question, and a survey mechanism was used for the second. Three demographic, 10 Likert-type-scale statements, and one free-text question were presented through an online survey instrument to stakeholders (alumni and preceptors). Stakeholders were asked about the importance, quality, and capabilities enabled by the HIT course. Nonparametric tests were used for analysis. The competency-mapping exercise highlighted clear relationships with learning objectives and identified two shortcomings in the current syllabus for both BHA and a MHA programs. Sixty-nine alumni and 20 preceptors provided valid responses to the surveys. Stakeholders generally agreed with the content of the current courses, but asked for updated material and more exposure to live electronic health records. Our methods highlighted shortfalls in our curriculum for one of our courses. We will next create surveys for the rest of the curriculum, engaging with our stakeholders in a continuous quality-improvement manner.