Literature DB >> 29618963

Value of Investment as a Key Driver for Prioritization and Implementation of Healthcare Software.

Seth A Bata1, Terry Richardson1.   

Abstract

Health systems across the nation are recovering from massive financial and resource investments in electronic health record applications. In the midst of these recovery efforts, implementations of new care models, including accountable care organizations and population health initiatives, are underway. The shift from fee-for-service to fee-for-outcomes and fee-for-value payment models calls for care providers to work in new ways. It also changes how physicians are compensated and reimbursed. These changes necessitate that healthcare systems further invest in information technology solutions. Selecting which information technology (IT) projects are of most value is vital, especially in light of recent expenditures. Return-on-investment analysis is a powerful tool used in various industries to select the most appropriate IT investments. It has proven vital in selecting, justifying, and implementing software projects. Other financial metrics, such as net present value, economic value added, and total economic impact, also quantify the success of expenditures on information systems. This paper extends the concept of quantifying project value to include clinical outcomes and nonfinancial value as investment returns, applying a systematic approach to healthcare software projects. We term this inclusive approach Value of Investment. It offers a necessary extension for application in clinical settings where a strictly financial view may fall short in providing a complete picture of important benefits. This paper outlines the Value of Investment process and its attributes, and uses illustrative examples to explore the efficacy of this methodology within a midsized health system.

Keywords:  ROI; SDLC; benefits estimator; healthcare software; project prioritization; value of investment

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29618963      PMCID: PMC5869444     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Health Inf Manag        ISSN: 1559-4122


  8 in total

1.  Study designs for PDSA quality improvement research.

Authors:  Theodore Speroff; Gerald T O'Connor
Journal:  Qual Manag Health Care       Date:  2004 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.926

2.  Good measurement for good improvement work.

Authors:  Eugene C Nelson; Mark E Splaine; Stephen K Plume; Paul Batalden
Journal:  Qual Manag Health Care       Date:  2004 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 0.926

3.  Health care and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Authors:  Robert Steinbrook
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-02-17       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  The role of the organizational champion in achieving health system change.

Authors:  Jane Hendy; James Barlow
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 5.  Despite the spread of health information exchange, there is little evidence of its impact on cost, use, and quality of care.

Authors:  Saurabh Rahurkar; Joshua R Vest; Nir Menachemi
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  Leadership, safety climate, and continuous quality improvement: impact on process quality and patient safety.

Authors:  Kathleen L McFadden; Gregory N Stock; Charles R Gowen
Journal:  Health Care Manage Rev       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar

7.  The Promise of Information and Communication Technology in Healthcare: Extracting Value From the Chaos.

Authors:  Burke W Mamlin; William M Tierney
Journal:  Am J Med Sci       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.378

8.  Estimating mean hospital cost as a function of length of stay and patient characteristics.

Authors:  Elena Polverejan; Joseph C Gardiner; Cathy J Bradley; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; David Rovner
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.046

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.