Masaharu Nakayama1,2, Ryusuke Inoue2, Satoshi Miyata3, Hiroaki Shimizu4. 1. Department of Medical Informatics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. 2. Medical Information Technology Center, Tohoku University Hospital, Sendai, Japan. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Teikyo University Graduate School of Public Health, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Akita University Hospital, Akita, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health information exchange (HIE) may improve diagnostic accuracy, treatment efficacy, and safety by providing treating physicians with expert advice. However, most previous studies on HIE have been observational in nature. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether collaboration between specialists and general practitioners (GPs) in rural areas via HIE can improve outcomes among patients at low-to-moderate risk of cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and stroke. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, the Miyagi Medical and Welfare Information Network was used for HIE. We evaluated the clinical data of 1,092 patients aged ≥65 years living in the rural areas of the Miyagi Prefecture and receiving care from GPs only. High-risk patients were immediately referred to specialists, whereas low-to-moderate risk patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group in which GPs were advised by specialists through HIE (n = 518, 38% male, mean age = 76 ± 7 years) or a control group in which GPs received no advice by specialists (n = 521, 39% male, mean age = 75 ± 7 years). RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, all-cause mortality and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events (e.g., hospital admission or unexpected referral to specialists) did not differ between the groups. However, per-protocol analysis controlling for GP adherence with specialist recommendations revealed significantly reduced all-cause mortality (p = 0.04) and cumulative serious adverse event incidence (p = 0.04) in the intervention group compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: HIE systems may improve outcomes among low-to-moderate risk patients by promoting greater collaboration between specialists and GPs, particularly in rural areas with few local specialists. Thieme. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Health information exchange (HIE) may improve diagnostic accuracy, treatment efficacy, and safety by providing treating physicians with expert advice. However, most previous studies on HIE have been observational in nature. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether collaboration between specialists and general practitioners (GPs) in rural areas via HIE can improve outcomes among patients at low-to-moderate risk of cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and stroke. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, the Miyagi Medical and Welfare Information Network was used for HIE. We evaluated the clinical data of 1,092 patients aged ≥65 years living in the rural areas of the Miyagi Prefecture and receiving care from GPs only. High-risk patients were immediately referred to specialists, whereas low-to-moderate risk patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group in which GPs were advised by specialists through HIE (n = 518, 38% male, mean age = 76 ± 7 years) or a control group in which GPs received no advice by specialists (n = 521, 39% male, mean age = 75 ± 7 years). RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, all-cause mortality and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events (e.g., hospital admission or unexpected referral to specialists) did not differ between the groups. However, per-protocol analysis controlling for GP adherence with specialist recommendations revealed significantly reduced all-cause mortality (p = 0.04) and cumulative serious adverse event incidence (p = 0.04) in the intervention group compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: HIE systems may improve outcomes among low-to-moderate risk patients by promoting greater collaboration between specialists and GPs, particularly in rural areas with few local specialists. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Authors: M Kimura; K Nakayasu; Y Ohshima; N Fujita; N Nakashima; H Jozaki; T Numano; T Shimizu; M Shimomura; F Sasaki; T Fujiki; T Nakashima; K Toyoda; H Hoshi; T Sakusabe; Y Naito; K Kawaguchi; H Watanabe; S Tani Journal: Methods Inf Med Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Thomas J Martin; Megan L Ranney; James Dorroh; Nicholas Asselin; Indra Neil Sarkar Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Kenneth S Boockvar; William Ho; Jennifer Pruskowski; Katherine E DiPalo; Jane J Wong; Jessica Patel; Jonathan R Nebeker; Rainu Kaushal; William Hung Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Thomas H Payne; Christian Lovis; Charles Gutteridge; Claudia Pagliari; Shivam Natarajan; Cui Yong; Lue-Ping Zhao Journal: J Glob Health Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.413
Authors: Christina L Cifra; Cody R Tigges; Sarah L Miller; Nathaniel Curl; Christopher D Monson; Kimberly C Dukes; Heather S Reisinger; Priyadarshini R Pennathur; Dean F Sittig; Hardeep Singh Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 2.762
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