Institute of Medical Informatics, University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology (UMIT), Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Section for Medical Information Management, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Methods Inf Med. 2020 Dec;59(S 02):e46-e63. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1715796. Epub 2020 Nov 18.
Many countries adopt eHealth applications to support patient-centered care. Through information exchange, these eHealth applications may overcome institutional data silos and support holistic and ubiquitous (regional or national) information logistics. Available eHealth indicators mostly describe usage and acceptance of eHealth in a country. The eHealth indicators focusing on the cross-institutional availability of patient-related information for health care professionals, patients, and care givers are rare.
This study aims to present eHealth indicators on cross-institutional availability of relevant patient data for health care professionals, as well as for patients and their caregivers across 14 countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong as a special administrative region of China, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States) to compare our indicators and the resulting data for the examined countries with other eHealth benchmarks and to extend and explore changes to a comparable survey in 2017. We defined "availability of patient data" as the ability to access data in and to add data to the patient record in the respective country.
The invited experts from each of the 14 countries provided the indicator data for their country to reflect the situation on August 1, 2019, as date of reference. Overall, 60 items were aggregated to six eHealth indicators.
Availability of patient-related information varies strongly by country. Health care professionals can access patients' most relevant cross-institutional health record data fully in only four countries. Patients and their caregivers can access their health record data fully in only two countries. Patients are able to fully add relevant data only in one country. Finland showed the best outcome of all eHealth indicators, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden.
Advancement in eHealth depends on contextual factors such as health care organization, national health politics, privacy laws, and health care financing. Improvements in eHealth indicators are thus often slow. However, our survey shows that some countries were able to improve on at least some indicators between 2017 and 2019. We anticipate further improvements in the future.
许多国家采用电子健康应用程序来支持以患者为中心的护理。通过信息交换,这些电子健康应用程序可以克服机构数据孤岛,并支持整体和无处不在的(区域或国家)信息物流。现有的电子健康指标大多描述了一个国家的电子健康的使用和接受情况。专注于医疗机构间为医疗保健专业人员、患者和护理人员提供相关患者信息的可用性的电子健康指标很少。
本研究旨在为 14 个国家(阿根廷、澳大利亚、奥地利、芬兰、德国、中国香港特别行政区、以色列、日本、约旦、肯尼亚、韩国、瑞典、土耳其和美国)的医疗保健专业人员以及患者及其护理人员提供关于跨机构提供相关患者数据的电子健康指标,以比较我们的指标和由此产生的数据与其他电子健康基准,并扩展和探索对 2017 年可比调查的更改。我们将“患者数据的可用性”定义为在各自国家/地区访问数据和向患者记录中添加数据的能力。
来自 14 个国家/地区的受邀专家提供了其国家/地区的指标数据,以反映 2019 年 8 月 1 日的情况作为参考日期。总共汇总了 60 个项目,形成了六个电子健康指标。
患者相关信息的可用性因国家而异。只有四个国家的医疗保健专业人员可以完全访问患者最重要的跨机构健康记录数据。只有两个国家的患者和护理人员可以完全访问其健康记录数据。只有一个国家的患者能够完全添加相关数据。在所有电子健康指标中,芬兰的表现最好,其次是韩国、日本和瑞典。
电子健康的进步取决于医疗保健组织、国家卫生政策、隐私法和卫生保健融资等背景因素。因此,电子健康指标的改进往往很慢。然而,我们的调查显示,一些国家在 2017 年至 2019 年间至少在某些指标上有所提高。我们预计未来会有进一步的改进。