ArticlePerspectives in health information managemen2012
Health information exchange: metrics to address quality of care and return on investment.
Article in Perspectives in health information managemen, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Falling short: how state laws can address health information exchange barriers and enablers.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Article
- Linking the health data system in the U.S.: Challenges to the benefits.International journal of nursing sciences · 2017Review
- The Feasibility of Using Electronic Health Records to Describe Demographic and Clinical Indicators of Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers.Journal of agromedicine · 2016Article
- Mobile Access to ClinicalConnect: A User Feedback Survey on Usability, Productivity, and Quality.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2015Article
- Health Information Exchange Readiness for Demonstrating Return on Investment and Quality of Care.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2015Article
- The wave has finally broken: now what?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to find out how many health information exchanges (HIEs) are using metrics to gauge their impact and to gather examples of metrics being used by HIEs. We administered a web-based survey to a list of functioning HIEs. Valid responses were received from 18 HIEs. Most respondents were nonprofits, most had sustainable business models, and half used metrics to gauge their impact. Reduction of duplicative testing, quality improvement efforts, care coordination, and improved readmission rates were cited as having the greatest potential to show return on investment. Most respondents selected patient-centered care as having the greatest potential to show quality improvement. The major limitation of this study is the low response rate. This study suggests that there are no standard metrics used by HIEs to evaluate their impact. The HIE community needs to take the lead in developing metrics to evaluate the benefits of information exchange.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22783153PMC3392952What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.