Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Book (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (5)
Keywords
- Cross-country comparison (1)
- Policy (1)
- eHealth (1)
- qualitative research (1)
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (5)
Objectives: This study aimed at the construction of what the core of eHealth policy making is, offering new perspectives about high priority procedures along the policy making process
Methods: Following Grounded Theory methodology, 59 qualitative telephone interviews with a broad variety of stakeholders from Austria, Switzerland and Germany were conducted
Results: The findings hinted at five priorities of eHealth policy making: strategy, consensus-building, decision-making, implementation and evaluation that emerged from the stakeholders’ perception of the eHealth policy. Hereby strategy, consensus-building and implementation gained the highest attention
Conclusions: These findings suggest three high priorities in eHealth policy: 1) developing and pursuing a consistent eHealth strategy, 2) investing time and resources into consensus-building to clear up difficulties early on in the process, 3) governing implementation towards serving patient care through systems fit for practice.
Public Interest Summary: Digitalisation is playing an increasingly crucial role in providing high quality health care. However, different countries have pursued different political paths. In this study, we wanted to know how the stakeholders perceived the political process in their country to identify strengths and weaknesses. We, therefore, conducted interviews about digital health policy with experts from Austria, Switzerland and Germany covering the full spectrum of stakeholders. The findings suggest three political musts: 1) a convincing and coherent strategy followed throughout the entire process, 2) consensus- building among the stakeholders, 3) using “fit for practice” as the yardstick to measure political success.
Multinational health IT benchmarks foster cross-country learning and have been employed at various levels, e.g. OECD and Nordic countries. A bi-national benchmark study conducted in 2007 revealed a significantly higher adoption of health IT in Austria compared to Germany, two countries with comparable healthcare systems. We now investigated whether these differences still persisted. We further studied whether these differences were associated with hospital intrinsic factors, i.e. the innovative power of the organisation and hospital demographics. We thus performed a survey to measure the “perceived IT availability” and the “innovative power of the hospital” of 464 German and 70 Austrian hospitals. The survey was based on a questionnaire with 52 items and was given to the directors of nursing in 2013/2014. Our findings confirmed a significantly greater IT availability in Austria than in Germany. This was visible in the aggregated IT adoption composite score “IT function” as well as in the IT adoption for the individual functions “nursing documentation” (OR = 5.98), “intensive care unit (ICU) documentation” (OR = 2.49), “medication administration documentation” (OR = 2.48), “electronic archive” (OR = 2.27) and “medication” (OR = 2.16). “Innovative power” was the strongest factor to explain the variance of the composite score “IT function”. It was effective in hospitals of both countries but significantly more effective in Austria than in Germany. “Hospital size” and “hospital system affiliation” were also significantly associated with the composite score “IT function”, but they did not differ between the countries. These findings can be partly associated with the national characteristics. Indicators point to a more favourable financial situation in Austrian hospitals; we thus argue that Austrian hospitals may possess a larger degree of financial freedom to be innovative and to act accordingly. This study is the first to empirically demonstrate the effect of “innovative power” in hospitals on health IT adoption in a bi-national health IT benchmark. We recommend directly including the financial situation into future regression models. On a political level, measures to stimulate the “innovative power” of hospitals should be considered to increase the digitalisation of healthcare.
This prospective longitudinal study aims at better understanding eHealth success factors in different European nations, esp. the role of eHealth-legislation in Switzerland and Germany. Qualitative interviews with 39 matched experts from a large variety of institutions in both nations were conducted. The individual statements in the interviews and the overall satisfaction rating indicate a clear trend for a more optimistic attitude towards the law in Switzerland than in Germany. This result is not surprising given the history of a telematics infrastructure in Germany. Cross-country learning topics for German politicians are the inclusion of the inpatient sector and the focus on one major application. In a next step, interview results from Austria will be included and with that the scope of study findings enriched.
Despite similar policy goals, the adoption of eHealth practices took different paths in Austria (AT), Switzerland (CH), and Germany (GER). We seek to provide a rigorous analysis of the current state of hospitals by focusing on three key eHealth areas: electronic patient records (EPR), health information exchange (HIE), electronic patient communication. For validation and in order to gain better contextual insight we applied a mixed method approach by combining survey results from clinical directors with qualitative interview data from eHealth experts of all three countries. Across countries, EPR adoption rates were reported highest (AT: 52%, CH: 78%, GER: 50%), HIE-rates were partly lower (AT: 52%, CH: 14%, GER: 17%), and electronic patient communication was reported lowest overall (AT: 17%, CH: 8%, GER: 19%). Amongst others, results indicate patient awareness about eHealth to be equally weak across countries, which thus may be an important focal point of future policy initiatives.