Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (82)
- Article (56)
- Book (10)
- Part of a Book (7)
- Working Paper (7)
- Report (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (163)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (2)
- Evaluation (2)
- eHealth (2)
- health information technology (2)
- Bass model (1)
- CEO (1)
- CEO-CIO relationship (1)
- Clinical handover (1)
- Common ground (1)
- Communication (1)
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (162)
The demand for evidence-based health informatics and benchmarking of 'good' information systems in health care gives an opportunity to continue reporting on recent papers in the German journal GMS Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (MIBE) here. The publications in focus deal with a comparison of benchmarking initiatives in German-speaking countries, use of communication standards in telemonitoring scenarios, the estimation of national cancer incidence rates and modifications of parametric tests. Furthermore papers in this issue of MIM are introduced which originally have been presented at the Annual Conference of the German Society of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology. They deal as well with evidence and evaluation of 'good' information systems but also with data harmonization, surveillance in obstetrics, adaptive designs and parametrical testing in statistical analysis, patient registries and signal processing.
Background: Availability and usage of individual IT applications have been studied intensively in the past years. Recently, IT support of clinical processes is attaining increasing attention. The underlying construct that describes the IT support of clinical workflows is clinical information logistics. This construct needs to be better understood, operationalised and measured.
Objectives: It is therefore the aim of this study to propose and develop a workflow composite score (WCS) for measuring clinical information logistics and to examine its quality based on reliability and validity analyses.
Methods: We largely followed the procedural model of MacKenzie and colleagues (2011) for defining and conceptualising the construct domain, for developing the measurement instrument, assessing the content validity, pretesting the instrument, specifying the model, capturing the data and computing the WCS and testing the reliability and validity.
Results: Clinical information logistics was decomposed into the descriptors data and information, function, integration and distribution, which embraced the framework validated by an analysis of the international literature. This framework was refined selecting representative clinical processes. We chose ward rounds, pre- and post-surgery processes and discharge as sample processes that served as concrete instances for the measurements. They are sufficiently complex, represent core clinical processes and involve different professions, departments and settings. The score was computed on the basis of data from 183 hospitals of different size, ownership, location and teaching status. Testing the reliability and validity yielded encouraging results: the reliability was high with r(split-half) = 0.89, the WCS discriminated between groups; the WCS correlated significantly and moderately with two EHR models and the WCS received good evaluation results by a sample of chief information officers (n = 67). These findings suggest the further utilisation of the WCS.
Conclusion: As the WCS does not assume ideal workflows as a gold standard but measures IT support of clinical workflows according to validated descriptors a high portability of the WCS to other hospitals in other countries is very likely. The WCS will contribute to a better understanding of the construct clinical information logistics.
Hochschule und Universität Osnabrück haben mit regionalen Partnern (Stadt, Landkreis, Bistum, evangelisch-lutherischem Kirchenkreis, Kompetenzzentrum Gesundheitswirtschaft) die Grundsatzvereinbarung unterzeichnet, in Osnabrück einen Gesundheitscampus zu etablieren. Das Ziel ist, einen Ort zu schaffen, an dem Wissenschaft, Unternehmen der Gesundheitsversorgung, Träger von Gesundheitseinrichtungen und Politik zusammenkommen, um innovative Versorgungskonzepte für die Region zu erproben. „ROSE – das Lernende Gesundheitssystem in der Region Osnabrück-Emsland“ ist ein Großprojekt im Rahmen des Gesundheitscampus Osnabrück, das von dem Niedersächsischen Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kultur (MWK) über 5 Jahre gefördert wird. Dabei wird das Prinzip des Lernens durch Feedback angewendet. Das bedeutet, dass durch Forschung in und mit der Praxis Evidenz im Sinne von practice-based evidence erzeugt wird, d.h. Evidenz für eine bessere Versorgungspraxis unter Berücksichtigung städtischer und ländlicher Strukturen. Dies hat zur Konsequenz, dass der Transferprozess zwischen Hochschule und Versorgungspraxis nicht am Ende sondern bereits am Anfang steht. Mit dem Ansatz einer wiederkehrenden Abfolge von Forschungsfragen und Analysen von Daten aus der Versorgungspraxis rekurriert ROSE auf das Prinzip des „Learning Health Care System“ (IOM, 2007). Im Rahmen von ROSE stimmen sich Hochschule und Universität Osnabrück ab, um die Ziele des Gesundheitscampus zu erreichen. Die geplante Umsetzung wird anhand eines Modells mit fünf Maßnahmen vorgestellt. Diese bauen auf der Vielfalt von bereits bestehenden Gesundheitsstudiengängen in Osnabrück auf und bringen Forschung, Nachwuchsförderung und Translation von Forschungsergebnissen zusammen.
Objective: To pilot benchmark measures of health information and communication technology (ICT) availability and use to facilitate cross-country learning.
Materials and Methods: A prior Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development–led effort involving 30 countries selected and defined functionality-based measures for availability and use of electronic health records, health information exchange, personal health records, and telehealth. In this pilot, an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Working Group compiled results for 38 countries for a subset of measures with broad coverage using new and/or adapted country-specific or multinational surveys and other sources from 2012 to 2015. We also synthesized country learnings to inform future benchmarking.
Results: While electronic records are widely used to store and manage patient information at the point of care—all but 2 pilot countries reported use by at least half of primary care physicians; many had rates above 75%—patient information exchange across organizations/settings is less common. Large variations in the availability and use of telehealth and personal health records also exist.
Discussion: Pilot participation demonstrated interest in cross-national benchmarking. Using the most comparable measures available to date, it showed substantial diversity in health ICT availability and use in all domains. The project also identified methodological considerations (e.g., structural and health systems issues that can affect measurement) important for future comparisons.
Conclusion: While health policies and priorities differ, many nations aim to increase access, quality, and/or efficiency of care through effective ICT use. By identifying variations and describing key contextual factors, benchmarking offers the potential to facilitate cross-national learning and accelerate the progress of individual countries.
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.
Background: For more than 30 years, there has been close cooperation between Japanese and German scientists with regard to information systems in health care. Collaboration has been formalized by an agreement between the respective scientific associations. Following this agreement, two joint workshops took place to explore the similarities and differences of electronic health record systems (EHRS) against the background of the two national healthcare systems that share many commonalities.
Objectives: To establish a framework and requirements for the quality of EHRS that may also serve as a basis for comparing different EHRS.
Methods: Donabedian's three dimensions of quality of medical care were adapted to the outcome, process, and structural quality of EHRS and their management. These quality dimensions were proposed before the first workshop of EHRS experts and enriched during the discussions.
Results: The Quality Requirements Framework of EHRS (QRF-EHRS) was defined and complemented by requirements for high quality EHRS. The framework integrates three quality dimensions (outcome, process, and structural quality), three layers of information systems (processes and data, applications, and physical tools) and three dimensions of information management (strategic, tactical, and operational information management).
Conclusions: Describing and comparing the quality of EHRS is in fact a multidimensional problem as given by the QRF-EHRS framework. This framework will be utilized to compare Japanese and German EHRS, notably those that were presented at the second workshop.
Background: While health informatics recommendations on competencies and education serve as highly desirable corridors for designing curricula and courses, they cannot show how the content should be situated in a specific and local context. Therefore, global and local perspectives need to be reconciled in a common framework.
Objectives: The primary aim of this study is therefore to empirically define and validate a framework of globally accepted core competency areas in health informatics and to enrich this framework with exemplar information derived from local educational settings.
Methods: To this end, (i) a survey was deployed and yielded insights from 43 nursing experts from 21 countries worldwide to measure the relevance of the core competency areas, (ii) a workshop at the International Nursing Informatics Conference (NI2016) held in June 2016 to provide information about the validation and clustering of these areas and (iii) exemplar case studies were compiled to match these findings with the practice. The survey was designed based on a comprehensive compilation of competencies from the international literature in medical and health informatics.
Results: The resulting recommendation framework consists of 24 core competency areas in health informatics defined for five major nursing roles. These areas were clustered in the domains “data, information, knowledge”, “information exchange and information sharing”, “ethical and legal issues”, “systems life cycle management”, “management” and “biostatistics and medical technology”, all of which showed high reliability values. The core competency areas were ranked by relevance and validated by a different group of experts. Exemplar case studies from Brazil, Germany, New Zealand, Taiwan/China, United Kingdom (Scotland) and the United States of America expanded on the competencies described in the core competency areas.
Conclusions: This international recommendation framework for competencies in health informatics directed at nurses provides a grid of knowledge for teachers and learner alike that is instantiated with knowledge about informatics competencies, professional roles, priorities and practical, local experience. It also provides a methodology for developing frameworks for other professions/disciplines. Finally, this framework lays the foundation of cross-country learning in health informatics education for nurses and other health professionals.
While Nursing Informatics competencies seem essential for the daily work of nurses, they are not formally integrated into nursing education in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, nor are there any national educational recommendations. The aim of this paper is to show how such recommendations can be developed, what competency areas are most relevant in the three countries and how the recommendations can be implemented in practice. To this end, a triple iterative procedure was proposed and applied starting with national health informatics recommendations for other professionals, matching and enriching these findings with topics from the international literature and finally validating them in an expert survey with 87 experts and in focus group sessions. Out of the 24 compiled competency areas, the relevance ratings of the following four recommended areas achieved values above 90%: nursing documentation (including terminologies), principles of nursing informatics, data protection and security, and quality assurance and quality management. As there were no significant differences between the three countries, these findings laid the foundation of the DACH Recommendations of Nursing Informatics as joint German (D), Austrian (A), and Swiss (CH) recommendations in Nursing Informatics. The methodology proposed has been utilized internationally, which demonstrates the added value of this study also outside the confines of Austria, Germany, Switzerland.
Objective: The more people there are who use clinical information systems (CIS) beyond their traditional intramural confines, the more promising the benefits are, and the more daunting the risks will be. This review thus explores the areas of ethical debates prompted by CIS conceptualized as smart systems reaching out to patients and citizens. Furthermore, it investigates the ethical competencies and education needed to use these systems appropriately.
Methods: A literature review covering ethics topics in combination with clinical and health information systems, clinical decision support, health information exchange, and various mobile devices and media was performed searching the MEDLINE database for articles from 2016 to 2019 with a focus on 2018 and 2019. A second search combined these keywords with education.
Results: By far, most of the discourses were dominated by privacy, confidentiality, and informed consent issues. Intertwined with confidentiality and clear boundaries, the provider-patient relationship has gained much attention. The opacity of algorithms and the lack of explicability of the results pose a further challenge. The necessity of sociotechnical ethics education was underpinned in many studies including advocating education for providers and patients alike. However, only a few publications expanded on ethical competencies. In the publications found, empirical research designs were employed to capture the stakeholders’ attitudes, but not to evaluate specific implementations.
Conclusion: Despite the broad discourses, ethical values have not yet found their firm place in empirically rigorous health technology evaluation studies. Similarly, sociotechnical ethics competencies obviously need detailed specifications. These two gaps set the stage for further research at the junction of clinical information systems and ethics.
Health IT adoption research is rooted in Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation theory, which is based on longitudinal analyses. However, many studies in this field use cross-sectional designs. The aim of this study therefore was to design and implement a system to (i) consolidate survey data sets originating from different years (ii) integrate additional secondary data and (iii) query and statistically analyse these longitudinal data. Our system design comprises a 5-tier-architecture that embraces tiers for data capture, data representation, logics, presentation and integration. In order to historicize data properly and to separate data storage from data analytics a data vault schema was implemented. This approach allows the flexible integration of heterogeneous data sets and the selection of comparable items. Data analysis is prepared by compiling data in data marts and performed by R and related tools. IT Report Healthcare data from 2011, 2013 and 2017 could be loaded, analysed and combined with secondary longitudinal data.