OBJECTIVE: To develop benchmark measures of health information and communication technology (ICT) use to facilitate cross-country comparisons and learning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The effort is led by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Approaches to definition and measurement within four ICT domains were compared across seven OECD countries in order to identify functionalities in each domain. These informed a set of functionality-based benchmark measures, which were refined in collaboration with representatives from more than 20 OECD and non-OECD countries. We report on progress to date and remaining work to enable countries to begin to collect benchmark data. RESULTS: The four benchmarking domains include provider-centric electronic record, patient-centric electronic record, health information exchange, and tele-health. There was broad agreement on functionalities in the provider-centric electronic record domain (eg, entry of core patient data, decision support), and less agreement in the other three domains in which country representatives worked to select benchmark functionalities. DISCUSSION: Many countries are working to implement ICTs to improve healthcare system performance. Although many countries are looking to others as potential models, the lack of consistent terminology and approach has made cross-national comparisons and learning difficult. CONCLUSIONS: As countries develop and implement strategies to increase the use of ICTs to promote health goals, there is a historic opportunity to enable cross-country learning. To facilitate this learning and reduce the chances that individual countries flounder, a common understanding of health ICT adoption and use is needed. The OECD-led benchmarking process is a crucial step towards achieving this.
OBJECTIVE: To develop benchmark measures of health information and communication technology (ICT) use to facilitate cross-country comparisons and learning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The effort is led by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Approaches to definition and measurement within four ICT domains were compared across seven OECD countries in order to identify functionalities in each domain. These informed a set of functionality-based benchmark measures, which were refined in collaboration with representatives from more than 20 OECD and non-OECD countries. We report on progress to date and remaining work to enable countries to begin to collect benchmark data. RESULTS: The four benchmarking domains include provider-centric electronic record, patient-centric electronic record, health information exchange, and tele-health. There was broad agreement on functionalities in the provider-centric electronic record domain (eg, entry of core patient data, decision support), and less agreement in the other three domains in which country representatives worked to select benchmark functionalities. DISCUSSION: Many countries are working to implement ICTs to improve healthcare system performance. Although many countries are looking to others as potential models, the lack of consistent terminology and approach has made cross-national comparisons and learning difficult. CONCLUSIONS: As countries develop and implement strategies to increase the use of ICTs to promote health goals, there is a historic opportunity to enable cross-country learning. To facilitate this learning and reduce the chances that individual countries flounder, a common understanding of health ICT adoption and use is needed. The OECD-led benchmarking process is a crucial step towards achieving this.
Entities:
Keywords:
adoption of health IT; cross-country benchmarking; definitions of health IT; health policy
Authors: Amit X Garg; Neill K J Adhikari; Heather McDonald; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; P J Devereaux; Joseph Beyene; Justina Sam; R Brian Haynes Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Basit Chaudhry; Jerome Wang; Shinyi Wu; Margaret Maglione; Walter Mojica; Elizabeth Roth; Sally C Morton; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-04-11 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Caroline Lubick Goldzweig; Ali Towfigh; Margaret Maglione; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Catherine M DesRoches; Eric G Campbell; Sowmya R Rao; Karen Donelan; Timothy G Ferris; Ashish Jha; Rainu Kaushal; Douglas E Levy; Sara Rosenbaum; Alexandra E Shields; David Blumenthal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin; Matthew F Burke; Michael C Hoaglin; David Blumenthal Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Jens Hüsers; Ursula Hübner; Moritz Esdar; Elske Ammenwerth; Werner O Hackl; Laura Naumann; Jan David Liebe Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Rosa Gini; Martijn Schuemie; Jeffrey Brown; Patrick Ryan; Edoardo Vacchi; Massimo Coppola; Walter Cazzola; Preciosa Coloma; Roberto Berni; Gayo Diallo; José Luis Oliveira; Paul Avillach; Gianluca Trifirò; Peter Rijnbeek; Mariadonata Bellentani; Johan van Der Lei; Niek Klazinga; Miriam Sturkenboom Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Date: 2016-02-08
Authors: Nils Pfeuffer; Angelika Beyer; Peter Penndorf; Maren Leiz; Franziska Radicke; Wolfgang Hoffmann; Neeltje van den Berg Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2022-09-15
Authors: Jennifer Zelmer; Elettra Ronchi; Hannele Hyppönen; Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva; Cristiano Codagnone; Christian Nøhr; Ursula Huebner; Anne Fazzalari; Julia Adler-Milstein Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497