Cashing in: cost-benefit analysis framework for digital hospitals.

BACKGROUND: For many countries, especially those outside the USA without incentive payments, implementing and maintaining electronic medical records (EMR) is expensive and can be controversial given the large amounts of investment. Evaluating the value of EMR implementation is necessary to understand whether or not, such investment, especially when it comes from the public source, is an efficient allocation of healthcare resources. Nonetheless, most countries have struggled to measure the return on EMR investment due to the lack of appropriate evaluation frameworks. METHODS: This paper outlines the development of an evidence-based digital health cost-benefit analysis (eHealth-CBA) framework to calculate the total economic value of the EMR implementation over time. A net positive benefit indicates such investment represents improved efficiency, and a net negative is considered a wasteful use of public resources. RESULTS: We developed a three-stage process that takes into account the complexity of the healthcare system and its stakeholders, the investment appraisal and evaluation practice, and the existing knowledge of EMR implementation. The three stages include (1) literature review, (2) stakeholder consultation, and (3) CBA framework development. The framework maps the impacts of the EMR to the quadruple aim of healthcare and clearly creates a method for value assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed framework is the first step toward developing a comprehensive evaluation framework for EMRs to inform health decision-makers about the economic value of digital investments rather than just the financial value.

Perspectives of a proposed patient navigator programme for people with chronic kidney disease in rural communities: Report from national workshops.

AIMS: People who live in rural areas have reduced access to appropriate and timely healthcare, leading to poorer health outcomes than their metropolitan-based counterparts. The aims of the workshops were to ascertain participants' perspectives on barriers to access to dialysis and transplantation, to identify and prioritize the roles of a rural patient navigator, to discuss the acceptability and feasibility of implementing this role and identify possible outcomes that could be used to measure the success of the programme in a clinical trial. METHODS: Rural patients (n = 19), their caregivers (n = 5) and health professionals (n = 18) from Australia participated in three workshops. We analysed the data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified four themes related to access to dialysis and transplantation: overwhelmed by separate and disconnected health systems, unprepared for emotional toll and isolation, lack of practical support and inability to develop trust and rapport. Four themes related to the role of the patient navigator programme: valuing lived experience, offering cultural expertise, requiring a conduit, and flexibility of the job description. The key roles prioritized by participants were psychological support and networking, provision/consolidation of education, and provision of practical support. CONCLUSION: Rural patients, caregivers and health professionals believed that programmes that include navigators with lived experience of dialysis and kidney transplantation and cultural expertise, especially for Aboriginal Australians, may have the potential to improve patient experiences in accessing healthcare.

Economic evaluation and analyses of hospital-based electronic medical records (EMRs): a scoping review of international literature.

Digital transformation is expensive and rarely smooth, often leading to higher costs than anticipated. It is challenging to demonstrate the contribution of digital health investment in achieving the healthcare aims of population health and workforce sustainability. We conducted a scoping review to understand how electronic medical record (EMR) implementations in the hospital setting have been evaluated using cost-benefit analysis (CBA) approaches. The review search resulted in 1184 unique articles, a final list of 28 was collated of which 20 were US-based studies. All studies were published in 2010-2019, with fewer studies published in more recent years. The data used to estimate benefits and costs were dated from 1996 to 2016, with most data from 2000 to 2010. Only three studies were qualified as using cost-benefit analysis approaches. While studies indicated that there is a positive impact from the EMR implementation, the impacts measured varied greatly. We concluded that the current literature demonstrates a lack of appropriate and comprehensive economic frameworks to understand the value of digital hospital implementations. Additionally, most studies failed to align fully to the quadruple aims of healthcare: they focused either on cost savings and/or improved patient outcomes and population health, none investigated healthcare-workforce sustainability.