Re-examining health IT policy: What will it take to derive value from our investment?

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 459-464

  Riskin, Loren ^a   Koppel, Ross ^b   Riskin, Daniel ^c  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Health information technology; Healthcare economics; Healthcare policy; Inraoperability; Meaningful use; Quality

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; INVESTMENT; LEADERSHIP; MEANINGFUL USE CRITERIA; MEDICAL INFORMATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; ECONOMICS; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MASS COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; STANDARDS; SYSTEM ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES;

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH POLICY; INVESTMENTS; MEANINGFUL USE; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; SOFTWARE; SYSTEMS INTEGRATION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84934277381     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-003065     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Jamoom E, Beatty P, Bercovitz A, et al. Physician adoption of electronic health record systems: United States, 2011. NCHS data brief, no. 98. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2012.
2. Orszag PR. Opportunities to increase efficiency in health care [Internet]. Statement at the Health Reform Summit of the Committee on Finance, United States Senate. Washington, DC: CBO, 2008. [cited 10 February 2014]. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/93xx/doc9384/06-16-HealthSummit.pdf
3. National Research Council. Core measurement needs for better care, better health, and lower costs: counting what counts: workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013.
4. Kellermann AL, Jones SS. What it will take to achieve the as-yet-unfulfilled promises of health information technology. Health Aff. 2013;32:63-68.
5. Institute of Medicine. Health IT and patient safety: building safer systems for better care. Committee on patient safety and health information technology. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012.
6. HealthIT.gov. SAFER Guides. [Internet]. Undated [cited 20 August 2014]. http://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchersimplementers/safer
7. Schneider EC, Ridgely MS, Meeker D, et al. Promoting patient safety through effective Health Information Technology risk management. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2014.
8. Corrigan JM, Kohn LT, Donaldson MS. eds. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington: National Academies Press, 1999.
9. Office of the National Coordinator of HIT. Get the facts about electronic health records: advancing America's health care. [Internet]. Washington, DC: ONC, [cited 22 February 2014]. http://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fact-sheets/ehrs-advancing-americas-health-care.pdf
10. DesRoches CM, Audet AM, Painter M, et al. Meeting Meaningful Use criteria and managing patient populations: a national survey of practicing physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:791-799.
11. Guerra A. Healthcare providers voice gripes at EHR usability hearing. [Internet]. InformationWeek; 2011 Apr [cited 18 February 2014]. http://www.informationweek.com/health care/electronic-medical-records/healthcare-providersvoice-gripes-at-ehr/229402180
12. Bowman S. Impact of electronic health record systems on information integrity: quality and safety implications. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2013;10:1c.
13. Makam AN, Lanham HJ, Batchelor K, et al. Use and satisfaction with key functions of a common commercial electronic health record: a survey of primary care providers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:1-7.
14. Karsh BT, Weinger MB, Abbott PA, et al. Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17:617-623.
15. Sebelius K. Voluntary 2015 edition electronic health record (EHR) certification criteria; interoperability updates and regulatory improvements. [Internet]. Washington, DC: ONC, 2014 [cited 23 February 2014]. http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2014-03959_PI.pdf
16. Bush GW. Incentives for the use of health information technology and establishing the position of the national health information technology coordinator. Executive Order 2004;13335.
17. Ettorchi-Tardy A, Levif M, Michel P. Benchmarking: a method for continuous quality improvement in health. Healthc Policy. 2012;7:e101.
18. Miyata H, Motomura N, Murakami A, et al. Effect of benchmarking projects on outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft surgery: challenges and prospects regarding the quality improvement initiative. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012; 143:1364-1369.
19. National Research Council. Toward quality measures for population health and the leading health indicators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013.
20. Baillie CA, VanZandbergen C, Tait G, et al. The readmission risk flag: using the electronic health record to automatically identify patients at risk for 30-day readmission. J Hosp Med. 2013;8:689-695.
21. Birk S. Population health: strategies that deliver value and results. Healthc Exec. 2012;28:10-12.
22. Sanford KD. Population health management: a "start small" strategy. Healthc Financ Manage. 2013;67:44-47.
23. HIMSS. Defining and testing EMR usability: principles and proposed methods of EMR usability evaluation and rating [Internet]. Chicago: Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS), 2009. [cited 8 February 2014]. http://www.himss.org/files/HIMSSorg/content/files/himss_definingandtestingemrusability.pdf
24. Lowry S, Ramaiah M, Patterson E, et al. Integrating electronic health records into clinical workflow: an application of human factors modeling methods to ambulatory care. Natl Inst Stand Technol. 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7988
25. Redish J, Lowry S, eds. Usability in health IT: technical strategy, implementation and research. Summary of workshop; 13 Jul 2010; Gaithersburg, MD. Natl Inst Stand Technol [Internet]: 2010 [cited 12 Oct 2014]. p 11-14. http://www.nist.gov/healthcare/usability/upload/UHIT_ Workshop_Report_Publication_Version.pdf
26. DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Rao SR, et al. Electronic health records in ambulatory care-a national survey of physicians. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:50-60.
27. Hsiao CJ, Hing E. Use and characteristics of electronic health record systems among office-based physician practices: United States, 2001-2013. NCHS data brief, no. 143 Hyattsville, MD: Natl Center for Health Statistics, 2014.
28. Reider J. Usability of EHRs remains a priority for ONC [Internet]. Washington, DC: HealthITBuzz, 2014 [cited 19 February 2014]. http://www.healthit.gov/buzz-blog/electronic-health-and-medical-records/usability-ehrs-remainspriority-onc/
29. Sinsky C, Hess J, Karsh BT. Comparative user experiences of health IT products: how user experiences would be reported and used. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2012.
30. Koppel R. Demanding utility from health information technology. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:845-846.
31. Leviss J. HIT or miss: lessons learned from health information technology implementations. American Health Information Management Association Press, 2010.
32. Koppel R. Keynote chapter: is HIT evidenced-based? International Medical Informatics Yearbook. Stuttgart, Germany: Schattauer Publishers, 2013.
33. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989; 13:319-340.
34. Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform. 2010; 43:159-172.
35. National Research Council. Health IT and patient safety: building safer systems for better care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012.
36. Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA. 2005;293:1197-1203.
37. Hicks LS, Sequist TD, Ayanian JZ, et al. Impact of computerized decision support on blood pressure management and control: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:429-441.
38. Ridgely MS, Greenberg MD. Too many alerts, too much liability: sorting through the malpractice implications of drug-drug interaction clinical decision support. St Louis UJ Health L & Pol'y. 2012;5:257-279.
39. Classen DC, Phansalkar S, Bates DW. Critical drug-drug interactions for use in electronic health records systems with computerized physician order entry: review of leading approaches. J Patient Saf. 2011;7:61-65.
40. Nanji KC, Slight SP, Seger DL, et al. Overrides of medication-related clinical decision support alerts in outpatients. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013(0):1-5.
41. Van Der Sijs H, Aarts J, Van Gelder T, et al. Turning off frequently overridden drug alerts: limited opportunities for doing it safely. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15:439-448.
42. Stolba N, Nguyen TM, Tjoa AM. Data warehouse facilitating evidence-based medicine. Complex data warehousing and knowledge discovery for advanced retrieval development: innovative methods and applications. IGI Global 2010: 174-207.
43. Evans RS, Lloyd JF, Pierce LA. Clinical use of an enterprise data warehouse. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2012;2012:189-198.
44. Health Affairs. Health policy brief: interoperability [Internet]. Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, 2014. [cited 2014 August 13]. http://healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief_ pdfs/healthpolicybrief_122.pdf
45. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Connecting Health and Care for the Nation: A 10-year vision to achieve an interoperable Health IT infrastructure [Internet]. [cited 20 August 2014]. http://www. healthit.gov/sites/default/files/ONC10yearInteroperability ConceptPaper.pdf
46. Bitton A, Flier LA, Jha AK. Health Information Technology in the era of care delivery reform: to what end?. JAMA. 2012; 307:2593-2594.
47. Riskin D. Congressional testimony. Hearing on "21st Century Technology for 21st Century Cures, " Subcommittees on Communications and Technology and Health 2014 [cited 20 August 2014]. http://democrats.ener gycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Testimony-Riskin-HE-CAT-Telehealth-2014-7-17.pdf
48. Health Information Technology Policy Committee. Meaningful Use workgroup request for comments regarding Meaningful Use Stage 2. Washington, DC: Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, 2011.
49. Blumenthal D. Implementation of the federal health information technology initiative. N Engl J Med. 2011;365: 2426-2431.
50. Zhou L, Soran CS, Jenter CA, et al. The relationship between electronic health record use and quality of care over time. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16:457-464.
51. Welch WP, Bazarko D, Ritten K, et al. Electronic health records in four community physician practices: impact on quality and cost of care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:320-328.
52. Ozhathil DK, Li Y, Smith JK, et al. Colectomy performance improvement within NSQIP 2005-2008. J Surg Res. 2011; 171:e9-e13.
53. Chen J, Ou L, Hollis SJ. A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organizations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:211.
54. Panzer RJ, Gitomer RS, Greene WH, et al. Increasing demands for quality measurement. JAMA. 2013;310: 1971-1980.
55. Goodhart C. Problems of monetary management: the U.K. experience. In: Courakis AS. ed. Inflation, depression, and economic policy in the West. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1981:111-146.
56. Jollis JG, Ancukiewicz M, DeLong ER, et al. Discordance of databases designed for claims payment versus clinical information systems: implications for outcomes research. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:844-850.
57. Tang PC, Ralston M, Arrigotti MF, et al. Comparison of methodologies for calculating quality measures based on administrative data versus clinical data from an electronic health record system: implications for performance measures. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14: 10-15.
58. Parsons A, McCullough C, Wang J, et al. Validity of electronic health record-derived quality measurement for performance monitoring. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19: 604-609.
59. Shaw G. The cost-benefit calculation of electronic health records systems [Internet]. FierceHealthIT, 2013. [cited 20 August 2014]. http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/costbenefit-calculation-electronic-health-records-systems/2013-08-19
60. Lewis N. EHR implementation still costs too much [Internet]. InformationWeek: HealthCare; 2012 Jul [cited 20 August 2014]. http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/elec tronic-health-records/ehr-implementation-still-costs-toomuch/d/d-id/1105211