Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Great Promises of Healthcare Information Technology Deliver Less

  • Chapter
Book cover Healthcare Information Management Systems

Part of the book series: Health Informatics ((HI))

Abstract

Healthcare Information Technology (HIT) continues to hold immense promise for reducing medical errors, collecting instant and vast data from across medical providers, increasing efficiency, improving clinician and patient satisfaction, sharing data, guiding clinicians with up-to-date findings, and facilitating teamwork within and across professions. Yet, almost everywhere clinicians find this technology frustrating and falling short of its promised benefits. In this chapter I examine the reasons for this chasm between promises and reality. In doing so, I review the many benefits of healthcare Information Technology (IT), the origins of electronic health records in both academic and commercial settings, government policies intended to spur the economy and encourage implementation of healthcare IT, the forces influencing those policies, vendor contracts, in addition to the role of the Office of the National Coordinator of Healthcare IT and of other offices in the Bush and Obama administrations. I also explore the barriers to establishing data standards, interoperability, full and transparent evaluations of EHRs and similar technologies, sharing of problematic EHR screen shots, and rapid remediation of healthcare IT-linked difficulties. Healthcare IT, despite its problems, provides many and essential benefits, and will continue to improve. To that end, I offer suggestions for bringing the promise and reality closer together.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We note that paper-based systems were themselves essential and valuable efforts to improve the practice of medicine and the safety of patients.

References

  1. Aarts J, Ash J, Berg M. Extending the understanding of computerized physician order entry: implications for professional collaboration, workflow and quality of care. Int J Med Inf. 2007;76:S4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). A robust health data infrastructure. Prepared by: JASON, The MITRE Corporation. AHRQ Publication No. 14-0041-EF April. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ash J, Sittig D, Poon E, et al. The extent and importance of unintended consequences of computerized physician order entry. JAMIA. 2007;14:415–23.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berger R, Kichak J. Computerized physician order entry: helpful or harmful? JAMIA. 2004;11:100–3.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell E, Sittig D, Ash J, et al. Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. JAMIA. 2006;13:547–56.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Data and reports. 2015. http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/DataAndReports.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2015.

  7. Collen M. A brief historical overview of hospital information system (HIS) evolution in the United States. Int J Med Inform. 1991;29(3–4):169–89.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, Morton SC, Shekelle PG. A systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Int Med. 2006;144(10):742–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Craven C, Koppel R, Weiner M. Information and evidence failures in daily work: how they can affect the safety of care. In: Zipperer L, editor. Patient safety: perspectives on evidence, information and knowledge transfer. Farnham: Gower Publishing; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Duke JD, Li X, Dexter P. Adherence to drug-drug interaction alerts in high-risk patients: a trial of context-enhanced alerting. JAMIA. 2013;20:494–8.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Electronic Health Record Association. Health Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS); 2015. http://www.himssehra.org/ASP/index.asp. Accessed 5 Apr 2015.

  12. Garg A, Adhikari N, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J, Sam J, Haynes RB. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1223–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Goodman K, Berner E, Dent M, Kaplan B, Koppel R, Rucker D, Sands D, Winkestein P. Challenges in ethics, safety, best practices and oversight regarding HIT vendors, their customers, and patients: a report of an AMIA special task force. JAMIA. 2011;18:77e81.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Han Y, Carcillo J, Venkataraman S, Clark R, Watson S, Nguyen T, Bayir H, Orr R. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics. 2004;116:1506–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Harrison M, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care: an interactive socio-technical analysis. JAMIA. 2007;14:542–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Health IT Policy Committee. JASON report task force final report. 15 Oct 2014. http://www.healthit.gov/facas/sites/faca/files/Joint_HIT_JTF_JTF%20HITPC%20Final%20Report%20Presentation%20v3_2014-10-15.pdf. Accessed 4 Apr 2015.

  17. Healthcare Information Management Systems Society. HIMSS EHR usability task force. Defining and testing EMR usability: principles and proposed methods of EMR usability evaluation and rating. 2009. http://www.himss.org/files/HIMSSorg/content/files/himss_definingandtestingemrusability.pdf.

  18. Healthcare Information Management Systems Society. http://www.himss.org/ASP/aboutHimssHome.asp. Accessed 25 Dec 2012.

  19. Healthy4U Blog. Healthcare vendor epic caught red handed: ghost writing and using customers as stealth lobbyists. Did ONC ignore this? August 2012. http://healthy4uaz.blogspot.com/2012/08/health-it-vendor-epic-caught-red-handed.html#. Accessed 3 Apr 2015.

  20. Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, et al. Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff. 2005;24:1103–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jha AK, Desroches CM, Campbell EG, et al. Use of electronic health records in U.S. Hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1628–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jones S, Koppel R, Ridgely S. AHRQ guide to reducing unintended consequences of HIT implementation and use. 2011. www.ucguide.org. Accessed 21 Jan 2013.

  23. Kannry J, Kushniruk A, Koppel R. Meaningful usability: health information for the rest of us. In: Ken O, editor. Medical informatics: an executive primer. 2nd ed. Chicago: Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society; 2011. p. 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Karsh B-T, Weinger MB, Abbott PA, Wears RL, et al. Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities. JAMIA. 2010;17:617–23.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kellermann AL, Jones SS. What it will take to achieve the as-yet-unfulfilled promises of health information technology. Health Aff. 2013;32(1):63–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Koppel R. The marginal utility of margin guidance: commentary on Ridgely and Greenberg. J Health Law Policy. 2012;l5(2):311–8.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Koppel R. Keynote chapter: is HIT evidenced-based? International medical informatics yearbook. Stuttgart: Schattauer Publishers; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Koppel R, Kreda D. Healthcare information technology vendors’ “Held Harmless clauses—implications for patients and clinicians. Commentary. JAMA. 2009;301(12):1276–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Koppel R, Kreda DA. Healthcare IT usability and suitability for clinical needs: challenges of design, workflow, and contractual relations. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;157:7–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Koppel R, Gordon S. First, do less harm: confronting the inconvenient problems of patient safety. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Koppel R, Localio AR, Cohen A, Strom BL. Neither panacea nor black box: responding to three journal of biomedical informatics papers on computerized physician order entry systems. J Biomed Inform. 2005;38(4):267–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Koppel R, Leonard CE, Localio AR, Cohen A, Auten R, Strom B. Identifying and quantifying medication errors: evaluation of rapidly discontinued medication orders submitted to a computerized physician order entry system. JAMIA. 2008;15(4):461–5.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Koppel R, Wetterneck T, Telles JL, Karsh BT. Workarounds to barcode medication administration systems: their occurrences, causes, and threats to patient safety. JAMIA. 2008;4:408–23.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Koppel R, Majumdar SR, Soumerai SB. Electronic health records and quality of diabetes care.” Editor’s correspondence. NEJM. 2011;365:2338–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kushniruk A, Monkman H, Tuden D, Bellwood P, Borycki E, et al. Integrating heuristic evaluation with cognitive walkthrough: development of a hybrid usability inspection method. In: Courtney KL, editor. Deriving quality in informatics: fulfilling the promise. Amsterdam: Ios Press; 2015. p. 221–5.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Madara JL. Open letter to office of the national coordinator of HIT Chair, Dr. Farzad Mostashari on the American Medical Association’s position on “Meaningful Use” regulations. 2013. http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/washington/stage-3-meaningful-use-electronic-health-records-comment-letter-14jan2013.pdf.

  37. McCormick D, Bor D, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein D. The effect of physicians’ electronic access to tests: a response to Farzad Mostashari. Health Affairs Blog. March 12, 2012: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/author/dmdbswdh/. Accessed 25 Dec 2012.

  38. Metzger J, Welebob E, Bates DW, Lipsitz S, Classen DC. Mixed results in the safety performance of computerized physician order entry. Health Aff. 2010;29(4):655–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nebeker J, Hoffman JM, Weir CR, et al. High rates of adverse events in a highly computerized hospital. Arch Int Med. 2005;165:1111–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Office of the National Coordinator (ONC). EHR incentives & certification – HealthIT.gov. 2010. www.healthit.gov/providers-professionals/ehr-incentives-certification. Accessed 2 Apr 2015.

  41. ONC. Key health alliance: regional extension assistance center for HIT: eligible hospitals: pre-attestation and audit checklist tool. 2013. http://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/eh_preattestationauditchecklisttool_07182013.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2015.

  42. ONC. Safer assurance factors For EHR resilience. Jan 2014. http://www.healthit.gov/safer/safer-guides. Accessed 4 Apr 2015.

  43. ONC. EHR incentives and certification: what is meaningful use. Health IT.gov. 2015. http://www.healthit.gov/providers-professionals/ehr-incentives-certification. Accessed 3 Apr 2015.

  44. Ridge MS, Greenberg MD. Too many alerts, too much liability: sorting through the malpractice implications of drug-drug interactions clinical decision support. J Health Law Policy. 2012;15(2):257–96.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Riskin L, Koppel R, Riskin D. Re-examining health IT policy: what will it take to derive value from our investment? JAMIA. 2015;22:459–64. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2014-003065. Perspective.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Shulman R Singer M, Goldstone J, et al. Medication errors: a prospective cohort study of hand-written and computerised physician order entry in the Intensive Care Unit,” Critical Care. 2005;9:R516–21.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Silverstein S. Contemporary issues in medical informatics: good health IT, bad health IT, and common examples of healthcare IT difficulties. 2015. http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=home. Accessed 7 Apr 2015.

  48. Sinsky CA, Hess J, Karsh B, Keller JP, Koppel R. Comparative user experiences of health IT products: how user experiences would be reported and used [Internet]. Washington (DC): Institute of Medicine; 2012 Sept. http://www.iom.edu/Global/Perspectives/2012/~/media/Files/. Accessed 4 Apr 2015.

  49. Spencer J, Koppel R, Ridgely MS. AHRQ Guide to reducing unintended consequences of HIT implementation and Use, 2011. www.ucguide.org. Accessed 13 May 2011.

  50. Smith SW, Koppel R. Healthcare information technology’s relativity problems: a typology of how patients’ physical reality, clinicians’ mental models, and healthcare information technology differ. JAMIA. 2014;21(1):117–31.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Terry KJ. Doctors’ 10 Biggest Mistakes When Using EHRs. Medscape business of medicine. 1 May 2013. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/803188. Accessed 4 Apr 2015.

  52. Wachter R. RIP meaningful use born 2009 – died 2014??? The Healthcare Blog. 2014. http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/11/26/rip-meaningful-use-2009-2014/.

  53. Wears R, Berg M. Computer technology and clinical work: still waiting for Godot. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1261–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and LDI Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Ross Koppel PhD, FACMI

Authors
  1. Ross Koppel PhD, FACMI
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ross Koppel PhD, FACMI .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Gentiva Health Services, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    Charlotte A. Weaver

  2. Healthcare Informatics, IBM Research, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    Marion J. Ball

  3. Division of Health Sciences Informatics, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    George R. Kim

  4. Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Joan M. Kiel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Koppel, R. (2016). Great Promises of Healthcare Information Technology Deliver Less. In: Weaver, C., Ball, M., Kim, G., Kiel, J. (eds) Healthcare Information Management Systems. Health Informatics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20765-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20765-0_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20764-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20765-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation