Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of information technology on hospital performance

  • Published:
Health Care Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While healthcare entities have integrated various forms of health information technology (HIT) into their systems due to claims of increased quality and decreased costs, as well as various incentives, there is little available information about which applications of HIT are actually the most beneficial and efficient. In this study, we aim to assist administrators in understanding the characteristics of top performing hospitals. We utilized data from the Health Information and Management Systems Society and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid to assess 1039 hospitals. Inputs considered were full time equivalents, hospital size, and technology inputs. Technology inputs included personal health records (PHR), electronic medical records (EMRs), computerized physician order entry systems (CPOEs), and electronic access to diagnostic results. Output variables were measures of quality, hospital readmission and mortality rate. The analysis was conducted in a two-stage methodology: Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Automatic Interaction Detector Analysis (AID), decision tree regression (DTreg). Overall, we found that electronic access to diagnostic results systems was the most influential technological characteristics; however organizational characteristics were more important than technological inputs. Hospitals that had the highest levels of quality indicated no excess in the use of technology input, averaging one use of a technology component. This study indicates that prudent consideration of organizational characteristics and technology is needed before investing in innovative programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rajagopal N (2013) Impact of information technology on service quality of health care dervices. Vilakshan: XIMB J Manag 10(1):79–96

    Google Scholar 

  2. Levaggi R, Moretto M, Rebba V (2009) Investment decisions in hospital technology when physicians are devoted workers. Econ Innov New Technol 18(5/6):487–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kunstova R, Potancok M (2013) How to measure benefits of non-standard healthcare systems. Eng Econ 24(2):119–125

    Google Scholar 

  4. Belanger E, Bartlett G, Dawes M, Rodriguez C, Hasson-Gidoni I (2012) Examining the evidence of the impact of health information technology in primary care: an argument for participatory research with health professionals and patients. Int J Med Inform 81:654–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Archer N, Fevrier-Thomas U, Lokker C, McKibbon KA, Straus SE (2011) Personal health records: a scoping review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 18(4):515–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wynia M, Torres GW, Lemieux J (2011) Many physicians are willing to use patients’ electronic personal health records, but doctors differ by location, gender, and practice. Health Aff 30(2):266–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Druss B, Ji X, Glick G, von Esenwein S (2014) Randomized trial of an electronic personal health record for patients with serious mental illnesses. Am J Psychiatr 171:360–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tenforde M, Nowacki A, Jain A, Hickner J (2012) The association between personal health record use and diabetes quality measures. J Gen Intern Med 27(4):420–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Goodwin JS, Jinhyung L, Yong-Fang K (2013) The effect of electronic medical record adoption on outcomes in US hospitals. BMC Health Serv Res 13(1):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Karsh B, Beasley J, Hagenauer M (2004) Are electronic medical records associated with improved perceptions of the quality of medical records, working conditions, or quality of working life? Behav Inform Technol 23(5):327–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rantz M, Hicks L, Petroski G, Madsen R, Alexander G et al (2010) Cost, staffing and quality impact of bedside electronic medical record (EMR) in nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc 11:485–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fairley C, Vodstrcil L, Huffam S, Cummings R, Chen M (2013) Evaluation of electronic medical record (EMR) at large urban primary care sexual health centre. PLOS One 8(4)

  13. Minesh P, Isha P, Chang J, Rachel R, Jatin SA, Rajesh B (2012) Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems- an introduction. J Pharm Res 5(10):4962–4967

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lluch M (2011) Healthcare professionals’ organizational barriers to health informationtechnologies—a literature review. Int J Med Inform 80(2011):849–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Charles K, Cannon M, Hall R, Coustasse A (2014) Can utilizing a computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system prevent hospital medical errors and adverse drug events? Perspectives in Health Information Management 1–16

  16. Simon S, Keohane C, Amato M, Coffey M, Cadet B et al (2013) Lessons learned from implementation of computerized provider order entry in 5 community hospitals: a qualitative study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Teufel R, Kazley A, Basco W (2012) Is computerized physician order entry use associated with a decrease in hospital resource in hospitals that care for children? J Med Syst 36(4):2411–2420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hurlen P, Østbye T, Borthne AS, Gulbrandsen P (2010) Does improved access to diagnostic imaging results reduce hospital length of stay? A retrospective study. BMC Health Serv Res 10:262–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Byrne S, Barrett B, Bhatia R (2015) The impact of diagnostic imagining wait times on the prognosis of lung cancer. Can Assoc Radiol J 66:53–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kantor M, Evans K, Shieh L (2015) Pending studies at hospital discharge: a pre- post analysis of an electronic medical record too to improve communication at hospital. J Gen Intern Med 30(3):312–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Patience A, Amir N, Ellis CJ, O’Sullivan AT, Faasse K, Gamble G, Petrie K (2015) Does the early feedback of results improve reassurance following diagnostic testing? A randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing cardiac investigation. Health Psychol 34(3):216–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. How can health IT improve efficiency of care delivery? http://www.hrsa.gov/healthit/toolbox/childrenstoolbox/improvingquality/efficiencyofcare.html. Accessed 25 Feb 2015

  23. Donabedian A (1983) Quality, cost, and clinical decisions. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 468:196–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zervopoulos P, Palaskas T (2011) Applying quality-driven, efficiency-adjusted DEA (QE-DEA) in the pursuit of high-efficiency–high-quality service units: an input-oriented approach. IMA J Manag Math 22(4):401–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Donabedian A, John RCW, Wyszewianski L (1982) Quality, cost, and health: an integrative model. Medical Care p. 976

  26. Donabedian A, John RCW, Wyszewianski L (1982) Quality, cost, and health: an integrative model. Medical Care 975–992

  27. McKinney M (2012) Right there all along. Latest IOM report lays out how to deliver safer, more effective care by using existing strategies, technology. Mod Healthc 42(37):6

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jones S, Rudin RS, Schneider EC, Heaton PS (2012) Unraveling the IT productivity paradox—lessons for health care. N Engl J Med 366(24):2243–2245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hebert M (1998) Impact of IT on health care professionals: changes in work and the productivity paradox. Health Serv Manag Res 11(2):69–79

    Google Scholar 

  30. Salzbert C, Jang Y, Rozenblum R, Zimlichman E, Tamblyn R, Bates D (2012) Policy initiatives for health information technology: a qualitative study of U.S. expectations and Canada’s experience. Int J Med Inform 81:713–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Silverman R (2013) EHRs, EMRs, and health information technology: to meaningful use and beyond. J Leg Med 34:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Appari A, Carian EK, Johnson ME, Anthony DL (2012) Medication administration quality and health information technology: a national study of US hospitals. J Am Med Inform Assoc 19(3):360–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hikmet N, Bhattacherjee A, Menachemi N, Kkakyhan V, Brooks R (2008) The role of organizational factors in the adoption of healthcare information technology in Florida hospitals. Health Care Manag Sci 11:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Navarro-Espigares JL, Torres EH (2011) Efficiency and quality in health services: a crucial link. Serv Ind J 31(3):385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kern L, Wilcox A, Shapiro J, Yoon-Flannery K, Abramson E, Barron Y, Kaushal R (2011) Community-based health information technology alliances: potential predictors of early sustainability. Am J Manag Care 17(4):290–295

    Google Scholar 

  36. Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, Blumenthal D (2011) The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff 30(3):464–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhivan N, Diana M (2012) U.S. hospital efficiency and adoption of health information technology. Health Care Manag Sci 15(1):37–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chuang C-L, Chang P-C, Lin R-H (2011) An efficiency data envelopment analysis model reinforced by classification and regression tree for hospital performance evaluation. J Med Syst 35(5):1075–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rahimi I, Behmanesh R (2012) Improve poultry farm efficiency in Iran: using combination neural networks, decision trees, and data envelopment analysis (DEA). Int J Appl Oper Res (3)

  40. Ozcan YA (2014) Health care benchmarking and performance evaluation: an assessment using data envelopment analysis (Dea). Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Kass GV (1975) Significance testing in automatic interaction detection (A.I.D). J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat 24(2):178

    Google Scholar 

  42. HCAPHS Hospital Survey. http://www.hcahpsonline.org/. Accessed 20 Oct 2013

  43. Dicks S, Chaplin R, Hood C (2013) Factors affecting care on acute hospital wards. Nurs Older People 25(1):18–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kuwahara Y, Nagata S, Taguchi A, Naruse T, Kawaguchi H, Murashima S (2013) Measuring the efficiencies of visiting nurse service agencies using data envelopment analysis. Health Care Manag Sci 16(3):228–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. McHugh M, Berez J, Small D (2013) Hospitals with higher nurse staffing had lower odds of readmissions penalties than hospitals with lower staffing. Health Aff 32(10):1740–1747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. McFarland D, Ornstein K, & Holcombe R. (2015) Demographic factors and hospital size predict patient satisfaction variance-implications for hospital value-based purchasing. J Hosp Med

  47. Lieberthal R, Comer D (2014) What are the characteristics that explain hospital quality? A longitudinal pridit approach. Risk Manage Insur Rev 17(1):17–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Electronic access to results does not decrease use of diagnostic test (2012) Am Fam Phys 85(8): 754

  49. McCormick D, Bor DH, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU (2012) Giving office- based physicians electronic access to patients’ prior imaging and lab resuls did not deer ordering of tests. Health Aff 31(3):488–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Neale G, Hogan H, Sevdalis N (2011) Misdiagnosis: analysis based on case record review with proposals aimed to improve diagnostic processes. Clin Med 11(4):317–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Boothby D, Dufour A, Tang J (2010) Technology adoption, training and productivity performance. Res Policy 39(5):650–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health, Brooks College of Health, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL, 32224-2646, USA

    Cynthia Williams

  2. College of Health & Public Affairs, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Fl, USA

    Yara Asi, Amanda Raffenaud, Matt Bagwell & Ibrahim Zeini

Authors
  1. Cynthia Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yara Asi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amanda Raffenaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matt Bagwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ibrahim Zeini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cynthia Williams.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Williams, C., Asi, Y., Raffenaud, A. et al. The effect of information technology on hospital performance. Health Care Manag Sci 19, 338–346 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-015-9329-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-015-9329-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation