Eden Rebekah, Burton-Jones Andrew, Scott Ian, Staib Andrew, Sullivan Clair
Information Systems School, Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Qld 4000, Australia. Email.
UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Blair Drive, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia. Email.
Aust Health Rev. 2018 Sep;42(5):568-578. doi: 10.1071/AH17255.
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.
目的 向数字化医院的转型进展迅速。尽管美国医院在实施电子健康技术方面比其他一些国家的医院更为领先,但其早期经验不一定适用于当代医疗保健,因为系统和技术都在迅速发展。提供对现有证据的最新评估很重要。本文旨在评估当前关于医院实施电子健康技术预期效果的文献。方法 对2015年11月至2017年8月期间发表的调查电子健康技术(临床决策支持系统(CDSS)、计算机化医嘱录入(CPOE)、电子处方、电子病历(EMR))效果的系统评价进行叙述性综述,并将结果与之前一篇叙述性综述(该综述考察了2010年1月至2015年10月期间发表的研究)的结果进行比较。两项研究采用相同的检索策略和选择标准。结果 在七篇相关文章中,三篇(42.9%)考察了不止一种电子健康系统的效果:只有两篇(28.6%)研究质量高,三篇(42.9%)质量中等,两篇(28.6%)质量低。我们发现电子病历在很大程度上与相互矛盾的结果相关。之前的综述表明,计算机化医嘱录入与成本节约、组织效率提高、资源利用减少和个人绩效改善等显著积极结果相关。然而,在最近的综述中并未对这些效果进行调查,且仅报告了临床医生之间沟通的混合结果。同样,对于电子处方,后期综述报告的益处证据有限,不过与临床决策支持系统结合时,报告的积极结果更为一致。结论 本综述有助于告知澳大利亚和其他地区的其他医院电子健康技术可能产生的效果。研究结果表明这些系统的效果大多是混合的,但也有积极结果,这鼓励医院实践持续进行数字化转型。关于该主题已知的情况是什么?政府越来越多地投入大量资源在医院实践中实施电子健康技术,目标是改善临床和财务结果。然而,这些结果在实践中尚未完全实现,且文献中经常报告相互矛盾的结果。本文补充了什么?本文扩展了之前对系统评价的叙述性综述,并将电子健康技术的效果分类为一种结果类型,以便能够报告总体结果并进行比较。在此过程中,我们综合了7年的电子健康效果。电子病历大多报告了混合结果,许多益处因对电子病历的抵制行为而受到损害。计算机化医嘱录入和电子处方的有效性证据有限。临床决策支持系统在临床医生和医院层面的效果方面与最一致的积极结果相关。我们观察到文献中对电子健康技术在临床医生之间以及与患者之间沟通的效果重新产生了兴趣。还出现了其他关于对临床判断、改变实践和员工留用的影响的新见解。对从业者有什么影响?电子健康技术有可能对临床和财务结果产生积极影响。然而,这些益处并非必然,且经常报告混合结果。这凸显了如果电子健康技术要在日益复杂的医疗环境中促进创建新的、更有效的患者护理模式,医院和决策者需要明确识别并依据成功实施的驱动因素采取行动。