Synergies and distinctions between computational disciplines in biomedical research: perspective from the Clinical andTranslational Science Award programs.

Clinical and translational research increasingly requires computation. Projects may involve multiple computationally oriented groups including information technology (IT) professionals, computer scientists, and biomedical informaticians. However, many biomedical researchers are not aware of the distinctions among these complementary groups, leading to confusion, delays, and suboptimal results. Although written from the perspective of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs within academic medical centers, this article addresses issues that extend beyond clinical and translational research. The authors describe the complementary but distinct roles of operational IT, research IT, computer science, and biomedical informatics using a clinical data warehouse as a running example. In general, IT professionals focus on technology. The authors distinguish between two types of IT groups within academic medical centers: central or administrative IT (supporting the administrative computing needs of large organizations) and research IT (supporting the computing needs of researchers). Computer scientists focus on general issues of computation such as designing faster computers or more efficient algorithms, rather than specific applications. In contrast, informaticians are concerned with data, information, and knowledge. Biomedical informaticians draw on a variety of tools, including but not limited to computers, to solve information problems in health care and biomedicine. The paper concludes with recommendations regarding administrative structures that can help to maximize the benefit of computation to biomedical research within academic health centers.

A pilot study to document the return on investment for implementing an ambulatory electronic health record at an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Adoption rates for electronic health records (EHRs) have been slow, despite growing enthusiasm. Cost is a frequently cited obstacle to implementing an EHR. The body of literature citing a positive return on investment is largely anecdotal and infrequently published in peer-reviewed journals. STUDY DESIGN: Five ambulatory offices, with a total of 28 providers, within the University of Rochester Medical Center, participated in a pilot project using an EHR to document the return on investment. A staged implementation of the Touchworks EHR (Allscripts) was undertaken from November 2003 to March 2004. Measurements of key financial indicators were made in the third calendar quarters of 2003 and 2005. These indicators included chart pulls, new chart creation, filing time, support staff salary, and transcription costs. In addition, patient cycle time, evaluation and management codes billed, and days in accounts receivable were evaluated to assess impact on office efficiency and billing. The savings realized were compared with the costs of the first 2 years of EHR use to determine return on investment. RESULTS: Total annual savings were $393,662 ($14,055 per provider). Total capital cost was $484,577. First-year operating expenses were $24,539. Total expenses for the first year were $509,539 ($18,182 per provider). Ongoing annual cost for subsequent years is $114,016 ($4,072 per provider). So, initial costs were recaptured within 16 months, with ongoing annual savings of $9,983 per provider. CONCLUSIONS: An EHR can rapidly demonstrate a positive return on investment when implemented in ambulatory offices associated with a university medical center, with a neutral impact on efficiency and billing.