BACKGROUND: Incentives offered by the U.S. government have spurred marked increases in use of health information technology (IT). PURPOSE: To update previous reviews and examine recent evidence that relates health IT functionalities prescribed in meaningful use regulations to key aspects of health care. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles in PubMed from January 2010 to August 2013. STUDY SELECTION: 236 studies, including pre-post and time-series designs and clinical trials that related the use of health IT to quality, safety, or efficiency. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data on functionality, study outcomes, and context. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-seven percent of the 236 studies evaluated clinical decision support and computerized provider order entry, whereas other meaningful use functionalities were rarely evaluated. Fifty-six percent of studies reported uniformly positive results, and an additional 21% reported mixed-positive effects. Reporting of context and implementation details was poor, and 61% of studies did not report any contextual details beyond basic information. LIMITATION: Potential for publication bias, and evaluated health IT systems and outcomes were heterogeneous and incompletely described. CONCLUSION: Strong evidence supports the use of clinical decision support and computerized provider order entry. However, insufficient reporting of implementation and context of use makes it impossible to determine why some health IT implementations are successful and others are not. The most important improvement that can be made in health IT evaluations is increased reporting of the effects of implementation and context. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Office of the National Coordinator.
BACKGROUND: Incentives offered by the U.S. government have spurred marked increases in use of health information technology (IT). PURPOSE: To update previous reviews and examine recent evidence that relates health IT functionalities prescribed in meaningful use regulations to key aspects of health care. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles in PubMed from January 2010 to August 2013. STUDY SELECTION: 236 studies, including pre-post and time-series designs and clinical trials that related the use of health IT to quality, safety, or efficiency. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data on functionality, study outcomes, and context. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-seven percent of the 236 studies evaluated clinical decision support and computerized provider order entry, whereas other meaningful use functionalities were rarely evaluated. Fifty-six percent of studies reported uniformly positive results, and an additional 21% reported mixed-positive effects. Reporting of context and implementation details was poor, and 61% of studies did not report any contextual details beyond basic information. LIMITATION: Potential for publication bias, and evaluated health IT systems and outcomes were heterogeneous and incompletely described. CONCLUSION: Strong evidence supports the use of clinical decision support and computerized provider order entry. However, insufficient reporting of implementation and context of use makes it impossible to determine why some health IT implementations are successful and others are not. The most important improvement that can be made in health IT evaluations is increased reporting of the effects of implementation and context. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Office of the National Coordinator.
Authors: David Tannenbaum; Jason N Doctor; Stephen D Persell; Mark W Friedberg; Daniella Meeker; Elisha M Friesema; Noah J Goldstein; Jeffrey A Linder; Craig R Fox Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jonathan Purtle; Robert I Field; Thomas Hipper; Jillian Nash-Arott; Esther Chernak; James W Buehler Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2018 Jan/Feb
Authors: Joshua R Vest; Hye-Young Jung; Kevin Wiley; Harold Kooreman; Lorren Pettit; Mark A Unruh Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2018-12-20 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Petra Knaup; Elske Ammenwerth; Carl Dujat; Andrew Grant; Arie Hasman; Andreas Hein; Achim Hochlehnert; Casimir Kulikowski; John Mantas; Victor Maojo; Michael Marschollek; Lincoln Moura; Maik Plischke; Rainer Röhrig; Jürgen Stausberg; Katsuhiko Takabayashi; Frank Uckert; Alfred Winter; Klaus-Hendrik Wolf; Reinhold Haux Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Thomas H Payne; Sarah Corley; Theresa A Cullen; Tejal K Gandhi; Linda Harrington; Gilad J Kuperman; John E Mattison; David P McCallie; Clement J McDonald; Paul C Tang; William M Tierney; Charlotte Weaver; Charlene R Weir; Michael H Zaroukian Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Adam Wright; Francine L Maloney; Matthew Wien; Lipika Samal; Srinivas Emani; Gianna Zuccotti Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: C U Lehmann; C A Longhurst; W Hersh; V Mohan; B P Levy; P J Embi; J T Finnell; A M Turner; R Martin; J Williamson; B Munger Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Jayme L Wilder; Devin Nadar; Nitin Gujral; Benjamin Ortiz; Robert Stevens; Faye Holder-Niles; John Lee; Jonathan M Gaffin Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 2.342