International Comparison of Six Basic eHealth Indicators Across 14 Countries: An eHealth Benchmarking Study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries adopt eHealth applications to support patient-centered care. Through information exchange, these eHealth applications may overcome institutional data silos and support holistic and ubiquitous (regional or national) information logistics. Available eHealth indicators mostly describe usage and acceptance of eHealth in a country. The eHealth indicators focusing on the cross-institutional availability of patient-related information for health care professionals, patients, and care givers are rare. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to present eHealth indicators on cross-institutional availability of relevant patient data for health care professionals, as well as for patients and their caregivers across 14 countries (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong as a special administrative region of China, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States) to compare our indicators and the resulting data for the examined countries with other eHealth benchmarks and to extend and explore changes to a comparable survey in 2017. We defined "availability of patient data" as the ability to access data in and to add data to the patient record in the respective country. METHODS: The invited experts from each of the 14 countries provided the indicator data for their country to reflect the situation on August 1, 2019, as date of reference. Overall, 60 items were aggregated to six eHealth indicators. RESULTS: Availability of patient-related information varies strongly by country. Health care professionals can access patients' most relevant cross-institutional health record data fully in only four countries. Patients and their caregivers can access their health record data fully in only two countries. Patients are able to fully add relevant data only in one country. Finland showed the best outcome of all eHealth indicators, followed by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden. CONCLUSION: Advancement in eHealth depends on contextual factors such as health care organization, national health politics, privacy laws, and health care financing. Improvements in eHealth indicators are thus often slow. However, our survey shows that some countries were able to improve on at least some indicators between 2017 and 2019. We anticipate further improvements in the future.

A Brief Survey on Six Basic and Reduced eHealth Indicators in Seven Countries in 2017.

BACKGROUND: Holistic, ubiquitous support of patient-centered health care (eHealth) at all health care institutions and in patients' homes through information processing is increasingly supplementing institution-centered care. While eHealth indicators may measure the transition from institution-centered (e.g., hospital-centered) information processing to patient-centered information processing, collecting relevant and timely data for such indicators has been difficult. OBJECTIVES: This article aims to design some basic eHealth indicators, which are easily collected and measure how well information processing supports holistic patient-centered health care, and to evaluate penetrance of patient-centered health as measured by the indicators internationally via an expert survey. METHODS: We identified six basic indicators that measure access of health care professionals, patients, and caregivers to the patient's health record data and the ability of providers, patients, and caregivers to add information in the patient's record. In a survey of international informatics experts, these indicators' penetrance were evaluated for Austria, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, South Korea, Sweden, and the United States in the summer of 2017. RESULTS: The eHealth status measured by the indicators varied significantly between these seven countries. In Finland, most practices measured by the indicators were fully implemented whereas in Germany only one practice was partially realized. CONCLUSION: Progress in the implementation of practices that support patient-centered care could mainly be observed in those countries where the "political will" focused on achieving patient-centered care as opposed to an emphasis on institution-centered care. The six eHealth indicators seem to be useful for measuring national progress in patient-centered care. Future work will extend the number of countries analyzed.

Hyperglycemia and retinopathy of prematurity in very low birth weight infants.

OBJECTIVE: Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) remains a leading cause of morbidity in the very low-birth-weight (VLBW) infant. This study investigates a possible association between serum/blood glucose and the development of ROP. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study of all infants born between 1992 and 1997 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital with birth weights less than 1000 g who developed Stage 3 or 4 ROP was conducted. Controls either had Stage 1 ROP or no eye disease and were matched 2:1 with ROP patients for gestational age, birth weight and year of birth. Odds ratios (ORs) of ROP were calculated for multiple exposures over the first month after birth, including oxygen concentration (FiO(2)), blood glucose levels, vitamin E, mean airway pressure and mean blood pressure. RESULTS: In a simple logistic regression analysis, we found an increased ROP risk for: (1) each 10 mg/dl increase of mean glucose (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.13 to 3.42), (2) each 1% increase of mean FiO(2) (OR 1.06; 95% CI 1.004 to 1.13), (3) history of dopamine infusion (OR 5.4; 95% CI 1.16 to 25.2) and (4) intraventricular hemorrhage Grade 3 or 4 (OR 7.3; 95% CI 1.53 to 34.7). Using a multiple regression model, we found an increased ROP risk for each 10 mg/dl increase of mean glucose (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.003 to 7.27). Each IU/kg/day of vitamin E supplementation reduced ROP risk (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.16-0.86). CONCLUSION: In this study, we could demonstrate that glucose levels in the first month of life are associated with the development of ROP. Further studies have to determine if this association is causal or if hyperglycemia is just an expression of severity of illness.