Advertisement

eHealth Policy

Chapter

Abstract

The rising of a new technological era has brought within it opportunities and threats the health systems worldwide have to deal with. In such a changed scenario the role of decision-makers is crucial to identify the real and perceived needs of the population and those areas on intervention in which eHealth can help to improve the quality and efficacy of care. Therefore, in-depth analysis of the state of the art both in industrialized and in developing countries is paramount. Many in fact are constraints that mine the designing and implementation of electronic systems for health. Only if policymakers understand the real implication of eHealth and the complexities of the human being, working model could be introduced. Otherwise the systems proposed will follow the same schemes that have produced failures so far. It implies also that the mutated role of the patient had to be known, together with his expectations and needs. Nevertheless, in a globalize world, a policy for eHealth have to consider also those factors that once did not strictly belong to the health context, ecology and a greener policy being some of those. In addition, as health has to be considered a universal value, the role of the developing world is today crucial: what advantages could technology bring to those areas in which the level of industrialization is still nominal? Yet, many are the opportunities that eHealth disclose to these settings, provided that a correct approach is followed, to avoid a waste of time and resources. At least, the future of eHealth has to be considered, so that long-term plans could be developed, so that the future and still unknown challenge for health could be promptly faced.

Keywords

Ehealth Policy Ecology Developing countries Industrialized countries 

References

  1. 1.
    Khoja S, Durrani H, Nayani P, Fahim A (2012) Scope of policy issues in eHealth: results from a structured literature review. J Med Internet Res 14(1):e34. Published online 2012 February 17. doi:  10.2196/jmir.1633
  2. 2.
    Sittig DF, Singh H (2011) Legal, ethical, and financial dilemmas in electronic health record adoption and use. Pediatrics 127(4). doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-2184
  3. 3.
    Ford EW, Menachemi N, Peterson LT, Huerta TR (2009) Resistance is futile: but it is slowing the pace of EHR adoption nonetheless. J Am Med Inform Assoc 16:274–281. doi:  10.1197/jamia.M3042 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hysong SJ, Esquivel A, Sittig DF, Paul LA, Espadas D, Singh S, Singh H (2011) Towards successful coordination of electronic health record based-referrals: a qualitative analysis. Implement Sci 6:84 http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1/84. Accessed 27 Dec 2012Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weiner JP (2012) Doctor-patient communication in the e-health era. Weiner Israel J Health Policy Res 1:33. http://www.ijhpr.org/content/1/1/33
  6. 6.
    European Commission (2012) Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. eHealth Action Plan 2012–2020—Innovative healthcare for the 21st century. COM(2012) 736 finalGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blumenthal D (2012) Expecting the unexpected: health information technology and medical professionalism. In: Rothman DJ, Blumenthal D (eds) Medical professionalism in the new information age. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ong LM, de Haes JC, Hoos AM, Lammes FB (1995) Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 40(7):903–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaddi A, Capello F, Gaddi P, Cevenini M, Carnevali L, Benedetto D (2012) Integrated prevention of cardiovascular disease: current and future perspective. Intern Emerg Med Suppl 57–62Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Capello F (2011) A common strategy for better health. CERN Bulletin 43–44Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ong LM, de Haes JC, Hoos AM, Lammes FB (1995) Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 40(7):903–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ziebland S, Chapple A, Dumelow C, Evans J, Prinjha S, Rozmovitz L (2004) How the internet affects patients' experience of cancer: a qualitative study. BMJ 328–564 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rinaldi G, Capello F, Gaddi A (2013) Medical data, information economy and federative network. Nova Science Publisher ISBN 1622578457Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    SWD (2012) eHealth Action Plas 2012–2020 – innovative healthcare for the 21st century – Brussels 6.12.2012 SWD (2012) 413 finalGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nartker AJ et al (2010). Increasing health worker capacity through distance learning: a comprehensive review of programmes in Tanzania. Hum Res Health 8:30Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Kwankam Y (2008) eHealth in developing countries: contemporary issues, challenges and opportunities for hospitals Available from: http://www.ihf-fih.org/content/download/145/909/file/56-8_YunkapKwankam.pdf
  18. 18.
    Milén A (2001) What do we about capacity building? An overview of existing knowledge and good practice. WHO, June 2001 Available from: whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/a76996.pdfGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holmner A, Rocklo J, Ng N, Nilsson M (2012) Climate change and eHealth: a promising strategy for health sector mitigation and adaptation. Glob Health Action 5:18428. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v5i0.18428
  20. 20.
    Saving carbon, improving health, NHS carbon reduction strategy for England (2009) http://www.sdu.nhs.uk/documents/publications/1237308334_qylG_saving_carbon,_improving_health_nhs_carbon_reducti.pdf. Accessed 2 Jan 2013
  21. 21.
    Health in the green economy; co-benefits to health of climate change mitigation (2011) Health care facilities, Preliminary findingsinitial review. http://www.who.int/hia/hgebrief_health.pdf Accessed 2 Jan 2013
  22. 22.
    Gullison RE, Frumhoff PC, Canadell JG, Field CB, Nepstad DC, Hayhoe K et al (2007) Environment. Tropical forests and climate policy. Science 316:985–986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. European Commission (2012) Commission staff working document. eHealth Action Plan 2012-2020—innovative healthcare for the 21st century. SWD(2012) 413 finalGoogle Scholar
  2. European Commission (2012) Commission staff working document. On the applicability of the existing EU legal framework to telemedicine services. SWD(2012) 414 finalGoogle Scholar
  3. European Commission (2012) Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. eHealth action plan 2012–2020—Innovative healthcare for the 21st century. COM(2012) 736 finalGoogle Scholar
  4. Goldberg DG, Kuzel AJ, Feng LB, DeShazo JP, Love LE (2012) EHRs in primary care practices: benefits, challenges, and successful strategies. Am J Manag Care 18(2):e48–e54Google Scholar
  5. Gomella LG (2011) How many clicks does it take to get to the middle of an EHR? Editorial. Can J Urol 18(5):5860Google Scholar
  6. Puustjärvi J, Puustjärvi L (2011) Personal health ontology: towards the interoperation of e-health tools. Int J Electron Health 6(1):62–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. US Department of Health and Human Services 45 CFR Part 170. RIN 0991–AB58. Health information technology: initial set of standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for electronic health record technology; Final Rule. Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 144/Wednesday, July 28, 2010/Rules and RegulationsGoogle Scholar
  8. US Department of Health and Human Services. 45 CFR Part 170. RIN 0991–AB82. Health information technology: standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for electronic health record technology, 2014 edition; revisions to the permanent certification program for health information technology. Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 171/Tuesday, September 4, 2012/Rules and RegulationsGoogle Scholar
  9. Weng C, Appelbaum P, Hripcsak G, Kronish I, Busacca L, Davidson KW, Bigger JT (2012) Using EHRs to integrate research with patient care: promises and challenges. J Am Med Inform Assoc 19(5):684–687. doi:  10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000878. Epub 2012 Apr 29Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CERNGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.European Institute of Oncology (EIO)MilanItaly

Personalised recommendations