Concerted adoption as an emerging strategy for digital transformation of healthcare-lessons from Australia, Canada, and England.

OBJECTIVES: With an increasing focus on the digitalization of health and care settings, there is significant scope to learn from international approaches to promote concerted adoption of electronic health records. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We review three large-scale initiatives from Australia, Canada, and England, and extract common lessons for future health and social care transformation strategy. RESULTS: We discuss how, despite differences in contexts, concerted adoption enables sharing of experience and learning to streamline the digital transformation of health and care. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Concerted adoption can be accelerated through building communities of expertise and partnerships promoting knowledge transfer and circulation of expertise; commonalities in geographical and cultural contexts; and commonalities in technological systems.

The need to strengthen the evaluation of the impact of Artificial Intelligence-based decision support systems on healthcare provision.

Despite the renewed interest in Artificial Intelligence-based clinical decision support systems (AI-CDS), there is still a lack of empirical evidence supporting their effectiveness. This underscores the need for rigorous and continuous evaluation and monitoring of processes and outcomes associated with the introduction of health information technology. We illustrate how the emergence of AI-CDS has helped to bring to the fore the critical importance of evaluation principles and action regarding all health information technology applications, as these hitherto have received limited attention. Key aspects include assessment of design, implementation and adoption contexts; ensuring systems support and optimise human performance (which in turn requires understanding clinical and system logics); and ensuring that design of systems prioritises ethics, equity, effectiveness, and outcomes. Going forward, information technology strategy, implementation and assessment need to actively incorporate these dimensions. International policy makers, regulators and strategic decision makers in implementing organisations therefore need to be cognisant of these aspects and incorporate them in decision-making and in prioritising investment. In particular, the emphasis needs to be on stronger and more evidence-based evaluation surrounding system limitations and risks as well as optimisation of outcomes, whilst ensuring learning and contextual review. Otherwise, there is a risk that applications will be sub-optimally embodied in health systems with unintended consequences and without yielding intended benefits.

The NHS Digital Academy Digital Health Leadership Programme.

The Digital Health Leadership Programme is commissioned by Health Education England and part of the wider NHS Digital Academy. The Programme is a consortium of Imperial College London's Institute of Global Health Innovation, The University of Edinburgh's Usher Institute and Harvard Medical School. In 2021, Health Data Research UK joined Imperial and Edinburgh to deliver phase 2. The aim is to develop a new generation of digital health leaders to drive transformation of the NHS through digitisation. Participants gain the skills and knowledge to create change so that patient care and organisational operations can benefit from the many improvements and innovations modern technology has to offer.

The Role of Formative Evaluation in Promoting Digitally-based Health Equity and Reducing Bias for Resilient Health Systems: The Case of Patient Portals.

OBJECTIVES: Patient portals are increasingly implemented to improve patient involvement and engagement. We here seek to provide an overview of ways to mitigate existing concerns that these technologies increase inequity and bias and do not reach those who could benefit most from them. METHODS: Based on the current literature, we review the limitations of existing evaluations of patient portals in relation to addressing health equity, literacy and bias; outline challenges evaluators face when conducting such evaluations; and suggest methodological approaches that may address existing shortcomings. RESULTS: Various stakeholder needs should be addressed before deploying patient portals, involving vulnerable groups in user-centred design, and studying unanticipated consequences and impacts of information systems in use over time. CONCLUSIONS: Formative approaches to evaluation can help to address existing shortcomings and facilitate the development and implementation of patient portals in an equitable way thereby promoting the creation of resilient health systems.

Benefits realization management in the context of a national digital transformation initiative in English provider organizations.

BACKGROUND: The Global Digital Exemplar (GDE) Programme is a national initiative to promote digitally enabled transformation in English provider organizations. The Programme applied benefits realization management techniques to promote and demonstrate transformative outcomes. This work was part of an independent national evaluation of the GDE Programme. AIMS: We explored how benefits realization management was approached and conceptualized in the GDE Programme. METHODS: We conducted a series of 36 longitudinal case studies of provider organizations participating in the GDE Programme, 12 of which were in depth. Data collection included a combination of 628 interviews (with implementation staff in provider organizations, national programme management staff, and suppliers), 499 documents (of national and local implementation plans and lessons learned), and 190 nonparticipant observations (of national and local programme management meetings to develop insights into the broader context of benefits realization activities, tensions arising, and how these were negotiated). Data were coded drawing on a sociotechnical framework developed in related work and thematically analyzed, initially within and then across cases, with the help of NVivo 11 software. RESULTS: Most stakeholders broadly agreed with the rationale of benefits realization in the GDE Programme to show due diligence that public money was appropriately spent, and to develop an evidence base supporting the value of digitally enabled transformation. Differing national and local reporting purposes, however, created tensions. Central requirements, for progress reporting and tracking high-level benefits, had limited perceived local value and were seen to impose an unnecessary burden on provider organizations. This was accentuated by the lack of harmonization of reporting requirements to different stakeholders (which differed in content and timing). There were tensions between the desire for early evidence of outcomes and the slow processes of infrastructural change (which created problems of attribution of benefits to causes as benefits emerged gradually and over long timeframes), and also between reporting immediately visible local changes and showing how these flowed through to high level organization wide benefits (eg, in terms of health outcomes or cost savings/return on investment). The attempt to fulfill these diverging agendas and informational needs within a single reporting tool had limited success. These difficulties were mitigated by efforts to simplify reporting requirements and to support targeted collection of key national outcome measures. Although progress was hampered by an initial lack of benefits realization expertise in provider organizations, some providers subsequently retained these skills for their own change management purposes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to recognize the limitations and cost of benefits realization management practices in the context of healthcare digitalization where benefits may materialize over long timeframes and in unanticipated ways. Although diverse stakeholder information needs may create tensions, prior agreement about rationales for collecting information and a targeted approach to tracking local and high-level benefits may enhance local relevance, reduce perceived reporting burdens, and improve acceptance/effectiveness. A single integrated reporting mechanism is unlikely to fulfill both national and local requirements.

Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care Dentistry in England and Wales: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, there has been considerable international attention aimed at improving the safety of hospital care, and more recently, this attention has broadened to include primary medical care. In contrast, the safety profile of primary care dentistry remains poorly characterized. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe the types of primary care dental patient safety incidents reported within a national incident reporting database and understand their contributory factors and consequences. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-methods study, which involved analysis of a weighted randomized sample of the most severe incident reports from primary care dentistry submitted to England and Wales' National Reporting and Learning System. Drawing on a conceptual literature-derived model of patient safety threats that we previously developed, we developed coding frameworks to describe and conduct thematic analysis of free text incident reports and determine the relationship between incident types, contributory factors, and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 2000 reports sampled, 1456 were eligible for analysis. Sixty types of incidents were identified and organized across preoperative (40.3%, n = 587), intraoperative (56.1%, n = 817), and postoperative (3.6%, n = 52) stages. The main sources of unsafe care were delays in treatment (344/1456, 23.6%), procedural errors (excluding wrong-tooth extraction) (227/1456; 15.6%), medication-related adverse incidents (161/1456, 11.1%), equipment failure (90/1456, 6.2%) and x-ray related errors (87/1456, 6.0%). Of all incidents that resulted in a harmful outcome (n = 77, 5.3%), more than half were due to wrong tooth extractions (37/77, 48.1%) mainly resulting from distraction of the dentist. As a result of this type of incident, 34 of the 37 patients (91.9%) examined required further unnecessary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Flaws in administrative processes need improvement because they are the main cause for patients experiencing delays in receiving treatment. Checklists and standardization of clinical procedures have the potential to reduce procedural errors and avoid overuse of services. Wrong-tooth extractions should be addressed through focused research initiatives and encouraging policy development to mandate learning from serious dental errors like never events.

Managing Pandemic Responses with Health Informatics - Challenges for Assessing Digital Health Technologies.

OBJECTIVES: To highlight the role of technology assessment in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: An overview of existing research and evaluation approaches along with expert perspectives drawn from the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) Working Group on Technology Assessment and Quality Development in Health Informatics and the European Federation for Medical Informatics (EFMI) Working Group for Assessment of Health Information Systems. RESULTS: Evaluation of digital health technologies for COVID-19 should be based on their technical maturity as well as the scale of implementation. For mature technologies like telehealth whose efficacy has been previously demonstrated, pragmatic, rapid evaluation using the complex systems paradigm which accounts for multiple sociotechnical factors, might be more suitable to examine their effectiveness and emerging safety concerns in new settings. New technologies, particularly those intended for use on a large scale such as digital contract tracing, will require assessment of their usability as well as performance prior to deployment, after which evaluation should shift to using a complex systems paradigm to examine the value of information provided. The success of a digital health technology is dependent on the value of information it provides relative to the sociotechnical context of the setting where it is implemented. CONCLUSION: Commitment to evaluation using the evidence-based medicine and complex systems paradigms will be critical to ensuring safe and effective use of digital health technologies for COVID-19 and future pandemics. There is an inherent tension between evaluation and the imperative to urgently deploy solutions that needs to be negotiated.

Online Guide for Electronic Health Evaluation Approaches: Systematic Scoping Review and Concept Mapping Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increase in use and high expectations of digital health solutions, scientific evidence about the effectiveness of electronic health (eHealth) and other aspects such as usability and accuracy is lagging behind. eHealth solutions are complex interventions, which require a wide array of evaluation approaches that are capable of answering the many different questions that arise during the consecutive study phases of eHealth development and implementation. However, evaluators seem to struggle in choosing suitable evaluation approaches in relation to a specific study phase. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project was to provide a structured overview of the existing eHealth evaluation approaches, with the aim of assisting eHealth evaluators in selecting a suitable approach for evaluating their eHealth solution at a specific evaluation study phase. METHODS: Three consecutive steps were followed. Step 1 was a systematic scoping review, summarizing existing eHealth evaluation approaches. Step 2 was a concept mapping study asking eHealth researchers about approaches for evaluating eHealth. In step 3, the results of step 1 and 2 were used to develop an "eHealth evaluation cycle" and subsequently compose the online "eHealth methodology guide." RESULTS: The scoping review yielded 57 articles describing 50 unique evaluation approaches. The concept mapping study questioned 43 eHealth researchers, resulting in 48 unique approaches. After removing duplicates, 75 unique evaluation approaches remained. Thereafter, an "eHealth evaluation cycle" was developed, consisting of six evaluation study phases: conceptual and planning, design, development and usability, pilot (feasibility), effectiveness (impact), uptake (implementation), and all phases. Finally, the "eHealth methodology guide" was composed by assigning the 75 evaluation approaches to the specific study phases of the "eHealth evaluation cycle." CONCLUSIONS: Seventy-five unique evaluation approaches were found in the literature and suggested by eHealth researchers, which served as content for the online "eHealth methodology guide." By assisting evaluators in selecting a suitable evaluation approach in relation to a specific study phase of the "eHealth evaluation cycle," the guide aims to enhance the quality, safety, and successful long-term implementation of novel eHealth solutions.

Agreeing on global research priorities for medication safety: an international prioritisation exercise.

OBJECTIVES: Medication errors continue to contribute substantially to global morbidity and mortality. In the context of the recent launch of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm, we sought to establish agreement on research priorities for medication safety. METHODS: We undertook a consensus prioritisation exercise using an approach developed by the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative. Based on a combination of productivity and citations, we identified leading researchers in patient and medication safety and invited them to participate. We also extended the invitation to a further pool of experts from the WHO Global Patient Safety Network. All experts independently generated research ideas, which they then independently scored based on the criteria of: answerability, effectiveness, innovativeness, implementation, burden reduction and equity. An overall Research Priority Score and Average Expert Agreement were calculated for each research question. FINDINGS: 131 experts submitted 333 research ideas, and 42 experts then scored the proposed research questions. The top prioritised research areas were: (1) deploying and scaling technology to enhance medication safety; (2) developing guidelines and standard operating procedures for high-risk patients, medications and contexts; (3) score-based approaches to predicting high-risk patients and situations; (4) interventions to increase patient medication literacy; (5) focused training courses for health professionals; and (6) universally applicable pictograms to avoid medication-related harm. Whilst there was a focus on promoting patient education and involvement across resource settings, priorities identified in high-resource settings centred on the optimisation of existing systems through technology. In low- and middle-resource settings, priorities focused on identifying systemic issues contributing to high-risk situations. CONCLUSIONS: WHO now plans to work with global, regional and national research funding agencies to catalyse the investment needed to enable teams to pursue these research priorities in medication safety across high-, middle- and low-resource country settings.

Creating a climate that catalyses healthcare innovation in the United Kingdom - learning lessons from international innovators.

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom (UK) lags behind other high-income countries in relation to technological innovation in healthcare. In order to inform UK strategy on how to catalyse innovation, we sought to understand what national strategies can help to promote a climate for innovation in healthcare settings by extracting lessons for the UK from international innovators. METHODS: We undertook a series of qualitative semi-structured interviews with senior international innovators from a range of health related policy, care/service delivery, commercial and academic backgrounds. Thematic analysis helped to explore how different stakeholder groups could facilitate/inhibit innovation at individual, organisational, and wider societal levels. RESULTS: We conducted 14 interviews and found that a conducive climate for healthcare innovation comprised of national/regional strategies stimulating commercial competition, promoting public/private relationships, and providing central direction (e.g. incentives for adoption and regulation through standards) without being restrictive. Organisational attitudes with a willingness to experiment and to take risks were also seen as important, but a bottom-up approach to innovation, based on the identification of clinical need, was seen as a crucial first step to construct relevant national policies. CONCLUSIONS: There is now a need to create mechanisms through which frontline National Health Service staff in relation can raise ideas/concerns and suggest opportunities for improvement, and then build national innovation environments that seek to address these needs. This should be accompanied by creating competitive health technology markets to stimulate a commercial environment that attracts high-quality health information technology experts and innovators working in partnership with staff and patients.

Approaches to promoting the appropriate use of antibiotics through hospital electronic prescribing systems: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify approaches of using stand-alone and more integrated hospital ePrescribing systems to promote and support the appropriate use of antibiotics, and identify gaps in order to inform future efforts in this area. METHODS: A systematic scoping review of the empirical literature from 1997 until 2015, searching the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry, Economic Evaluation database and International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Search terms related to different components of systems, hospital settings and antimicrobial stewardship. Two reviewers independently screened papers and mutually agreed papers for inclusion. We undertook an interpretive synthesis. KEY FINDINGS: We identified 143 papers. The majority of these were single-centre observational studies from North American settings with a wide range of system functionalities. Most evidence related to computerised decision support (CDS) and computerised physician order entry (CPOE) functionalities, of which many were extensively customised. We also found some limited work surrounding integration with laboratory results, pharmacy systems and organisational surveillance. Outcomes examined included healthcare professional performance, patient outcomes and health economic evaluations. We found at times conflicting conclusions surrounding effectiveness, which may be due to heterogeneity of populations, technologies and outcomes studied. Reports of unintended consequences were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions are centred on CPOE and CDS, but also include additional functionality aiming to support various facets of the medicines management process. Wider organisational dimensions appear important to supporting adoption. Evaluations should consider processes, clinical, economic and safety outcomes in order to generate generalisable insights into safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Qualitative analysis of multi-disciplinary round-table discussions on the acceleration of benefits and data analytics through hospital electronic prescribing (ePrescribing) systems.

BACKGROUND: Electronic systems that facilitate prescribing, administration and dispensing of medicines (ePrescribing systems) are at the heart of international efforts to improve the safety, quality and efficiency of medicine management. Considering the initial costs of procuring and maintaining ePrescribing systems, there is a need to better understand how to accelerate and maximise the financial benefits associated with these systems. OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate how different sectors are approaching the realisation of returns on investment from ePrescribing systems in U.K. hospitals and what lessons can be learned for future developments and implementation strategies within healthcare settings. METHOD: We conducted international, multi-disciplinary, round-table discussions with 21 participants from different backgrounds including policy makers, healthcare organisations, academic researchers, vendors and patient representatives. The discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and then thematically analysed with the qualitative analysis software NVivo10. RESULTS: There was an over-riding concern that realising financial returns from ePrescribing systems was challenging. The underlying reasons included substantial fixed costs of care provision, the difficulties in radically changing the medicines management process and the lack of capacity within NHS hospitals to analyse and exploit the digital data being generated. Any future data strategy should take into account the need to collect and analyse local and national data (i.e. within and across hospitals), setting comparators to measure progress (i.e. baseline measurements) and clear standards guiding data management so that data are comparable across settings. CONCLUSIONS: A more coherent national approach to realising financial benefits from ePrescribing systems is needed as implementations progress and the range of tools to collect information will lead to exponential data growth. The move towards more sophisticated closed-loop systems that integrate prescribing, administration and dispensing, as well as increasingly empowered patients accessing their data through portals and portable devices, will accelerate these developments. Meaningful analysis of data will be the key to realise benefits associated with systems.

Health information technology in hospitals: current issues and future trends.

Healthcare is at an important crossroads in that current models of care are increasingly seen by politicians and policymakers as unsustainable. Furthermore, there is a need to move away from the reactive, doctor-centred model of care to one that is more patient-centred and that consistently delivers accessible, high-quality and safe care to all. Greater use of health information technology (HIT) is seen by many key decision makers as crucial to this transformation process and, hence, substantial investments are made in this area. However, healthcare, particularly in UK hospitals, remains a laggard in HIT adoption. To uncover the underlying reasons, we discuss current implementation and adoption challenges and explore potential ways to address these. We outline strategic, organisational, technical and social factors that can 'make or break' technological implementations. Most importantly, we suggest that efforts should be characterised by an underlying awareness of the complexity of the hospital environment and the need to develop tools that support provision of integrated multidisciplinary care. We conclude with a discussion of promising future developments, including increased patient involvement; access and contribution to shared records; the penetration of smart devices; greater health information exchange and interoperability; and innovative real-time secondary uses of data. We argue that there is considerable merit in evaluating the introduction of these interventions to help ensure that they are optimised for effectiveness, support efficient working and minimise the possibility of inadvertently introducing new risks into already complex health systems. Our over-riding message is that HIT should be seen as, where appropriate, a potential enabler and an important source of data to support healthcare redesign and that critical, ongoing evaluation is key to maximising benefits. However, it should not be seen as a silver bullet.

The collection and utilisation of patient ethnicity data in general practices and hospitals in the United Kingdom: a qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Although the collection of patient ethnicity data is a requirement of publicly funded healthcare providers in the UK, recording of ethnicity is sub-optimal for reasons that remain poorly understood. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand enablers and barriers to the collection and utilisation of ethnicity data within electronic health records, how these practices have developed and what benefit this information provides to different stakeholder groups. METHODS: We undertook an in-depth, qualitative case study drawing on interviews and documents obtained from participants working as academics, managers and administrators within the UK. RESULTS: Information regarding patient ethnicity was collected and coded as administrative patient data, and/or in narrative form within clinical records. We identified disparities in the classification of ethnicity, approaches to coding and levels of completeness due to differing local, regional and national policies and processes. Most participants could not identify any clinical value of ethnicity information and many did not know if and when data were shared between services or used to support quality of care and research. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlighted substantial variations in data classification, and practical challenges in data collection and usage that undermine the integrity of data collected. Future work needs to focus on explaining the uses of these data to frontline clinicians, identifying resources that can support busy professionals to collect standardised data and then, once collected, maximising the utility of these data.

National evaluation of the benefits and risks of greater structuring and coding of the electronic health record: exploratory qualitative investigation.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore stakeholder views, attitudes, needs, and expectations regarding likely benefits and risks resulting from increased structuring and coding of clinical information within electronic health records (EHRs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Qualitative investigation in primary and secondary care and research settings throughout the UK. Data were derived from interviews, expert discussion groups, observations, and relevant documents. Participants (n=70) included patients, healthcare professionals, health service commissioners, policy makers, managers, administrators, systems developers, researchers, and academics. RESULTS: Four main themes arose from our data: variations in documentation practice; patient care benefits; secondary uses of information; and informing and involving patients. We observed a lack of guidelines, co-ordination, and dissemination of best practice relating to the design and use of information structures. While we identified immediate benefits for direct care and secondary analysis, many healthcare professionals did not see the relevance of structured and/or coded data to clinical practice. The potential for structured information to increase patient understanding of their diagnosis and treatment contrasted with concerns regarding the appropriateness of coded information for patients. CONCLUSIONS: The design and development of EHRs requires the capture of narrative information to reflect patient/clinician communication and computable data for administration and research purposes. Increased structuring and/or coding of EHRs therefore offers both benefits and risks. Documentation standards within clinical guidelines are likely to encourage comprehensive, accurate processing of data. As data structures may impact upon clinician/patient interactions, new models of documentation may be necessary if EHRs are to be read and authored by patients.