Effects of eHealth on hospital practice: synthesis of the current literature
Rebekah Eden A , Andrew Burton-Jones B , Ian Scott C , Andrew Staib D and Clair Sullivan D E FA Information Systems School, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Qld 4000, Australia. Email: rg.eden@qut.edu.au
B UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Blair Drive, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia. Email: abj@business.uq.edu.au
C Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, Qld 4102, Australia. Email: Ian.Scott@health.qld.gov.au
D Health Improvement Unit, Clinical Excellence Division, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, Qld 4102, Australia. Email: Andrew.Staib@health.qld.gov.au
E Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Herston Rd, Herston, Qld 4006, Australia.
F Corresponding author. Email: Clair.Sullivan@health.qld.gov.au
Australian Health Review 42(5) 568-578 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH17255
Submitted: 16 November 2017 Accepted: 5 February 2018 Published: 10 July 2018
Journal compilation © AHHA 2018 Open Access CC BY-NC-ND
Abstract
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.
References
[1] Hruby GW, Matsoukas K, Cimino JJ, Weng C. Facilitating biomedical researchers’ interrogation of electronic health record data: ideas from outside of biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform 2016; 60 376–84.| Facilitating biomedical researchers’ interrogation of electronic health record data: ideas from outside of biomedical informatics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[2] Gardner RM. Clinical information systems – from yesterday to tomorrow. Yearb Med Inform 2016; S62–S75.
| Clinical information systems – from yesterday to tomorrow.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[3] Zheng K, Abraham J, Novak LL, Reynolds TL, Gettinger A. A survey of the literature on unintended consequences associated with health information technology. Yearb Med Inform 2016; 13–29.
[4] Rathert C, Mittler JN, Banerjee S, McDaniel J. Patient-centred communication in the era of electronic health records: what does the evidence say. Patient Educ Couns 2017; 100 50–64.
| Patient-centred communication in the era of electronic health records: what does the evidence say.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Kuziemsky CE, Randell R, Borycki EM. Understanding unintended consequences and health information technology: contribution from the IMIA Organizational and Social Issues Working Group. Yearb Med Inform 2016; 53–60.
| Understanding unintended consequences and health information technology: contribution from the IMIA Organizational and Social Issues Working Group.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[6] Keasberry J, Scott IA, Sullivan C, Staib A, Ashby R. Going digital: a narrative overview of the clinical and organisational impacts of eHealth technologies in hospital practice. Aust Health Rev 2017; 41 646–64.
| Going digital: a narrative overview of the clinical and organisational impacts of eHealth technologies in hospital practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Eden R, Burton-Jones A, Scott I, Staib A, Sullivan C. The impacts of eHealth upon hospital practice: synthesis of the current literature. Deeble Institue Evidence Brief 2017; 16 6
[8] Templier M, Pare G. A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Comm Assoc Inform Syst 2015; 37 112–37.
[9] Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7 10
| Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Long L, Briscoe S, Cooper C, Hyde C, Crathorne L. What is the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for tendinopathy? An overview of systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness and systematic review of economic evaluations. Health Technol Assess 2015; 19
| What is the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for tendinopathy? An overview of systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness and systematic review of economic evaluations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, Anandan C, Cresswell K, Bokun T, McKinstry B, Proctor R, Majeed A, Sheikh A. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med 2011; 8 e1000387
| The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Nabovati E, Vakili-Arki H, Taherzadeh Z, Saberi MR, Medlock S, Abu-Hanna A, Eslami S. Information technology-based interventions to improve drug–drug interaction outcomes: a systematic review on features and effects. J Med Syst 2017; 41 12
| Information technology-based interventions to improve drug–drug interaction outcomes: a systematic review on features and effects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Cook DA, Teixeira MT, Heale BSE, Cimino JJ, Del Fiol G. Context-sensitive decision support (infobuttons) in electronic health records: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 460–8.
| Context-sensitive decision support (infobuttons) in electronic health records: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Dunn Lopez K, Gephart SM, Raszewski R, Sousa V, Shehorn LE, Abraham J. Integrative review of clinical decision support for registered nurses in acute care settings. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 441–50.
| Integrative review of clinical decision support for registered nurses in acute care settings.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Slovis BH, Nahass TA, Salmasian H, Kuperman G, Vawdrey DK. Asynchronous automated electronic laboratory result notifications: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 1173–83.
| Asynchronous automated electronic laboratory result notifications: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Kushniruk AW, Triola MM, Borycki EM, Stein B, Kannry JL. Technology induced error and usability: the relationship between usability problems and prescription errors when using a handheld application. Int J Med Inform 2005; 74 519–26.
| Technology induced error and usability: the relationship between usability problems and prescription errors when using a handheld application.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Hartling L. Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017; 17 48–61.
| Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Talmon J, Ammenwerth E, Brender J, De Keizer N, Nykänen P, Rigby M. STARE-HI—Statement on reporting of evaluation studies in Health Informatics. Int J Med Inform 2009; 78 1–9.
| STARE-HI—Statement on reporting of evaluation studies in Health Informatics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[19] Street RL, Makoul G, Arora NK, Epstein RM. How does communication heal: pathways linking clinician–patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 74 295–301.
| How does communication heal: pathways linking clinician–patient communication to health outcomes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
