McMasterLogo_New-2017-300x165
Back
Clinician Article

Enabling patient-centered care through health information technology.



  • Finkelstein J
  • Knight A
  • Marinopoulos S
  • Gibbons MC
  • Berger Z
  • Aboumatar H, et al.
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2012 Jun;(206):1-1531. (Review)
PMID: 24422882
Read abstract Read evidence summary Read full text
Disciplines
  • Special Interest - Obesity -- Physician
    Relevance - 7/7
    Newsworthiness - 6/7
  • Internal Medicine
    Relevance - 6/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • Cardiology
    Relevance - 5/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • Psychiatry
    Relevance - 5/7
    Newsworthiness - 5/7
  • FM/GP/Mental Health
    Relevance - 5/7
    Newsworthiness - 4/7
  • Respirology/Pulmonology
    Relevance - 5/7
    Newsworthiness - 4/7
  • Family Medicine (FM)/General Practice (GP)
    Relevance - 5/7
    Newsworthiness - 3/7
  • General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US)
    Relevance - 5/7
    Newsworthiness - 3/7
  • Endocrine
    Relevance - 4/7
    Newsworthiness - 4/7

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of the report is to review the evidence on the impact of health information technology (IT) that supports patient-centered care (PCC) on: health care processes; clinical outcomes; intermediate outcomes (patient or provider satisfaction, health knowledge and behavior, and cost); responsiveness to needs and preferences of patients; shared decisionmaking and patient-clinician communication; and access to information. Additional objectives were to identify barriers and facilitators for using health IT to deliver PCC, and to identify gaps in evidence and information needed by patients, providers, payers, and policymakers.

DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, INSPEC, and Compendex databases through July 31, 2010.

METHODS: Paired members of our team reviewed citations to identify randomized controlled trials of PCC-related health IT interventions and studies that addressed barriers and facilitators for health IT for delivery of PCC. Independent assessors rated studies for quality. Paired reviewers abstracted data.

RESULTS: The search identified 327 eligible articles, including 184 articles on the impact of health IT applications implemented to support PCC and 206 articles addressing barriers or facilitators for such health IT applications. Sixty-three articles addressed both questions. The study results suggested positive effects of PCC-related health IT interventions on health care process outcomes, disease-specific clinical outcomes (for diabetes mellitus, heart disease, cancer, and other health conditions), intermediate outcomes, responsiveness to the needs and preferences of patients, shared decisionmaking, patient-clinician communication, and access to medical information. Studies reported a number of barriers and facilitators for using health IT applications to enable PCC. Barriers included: lack of usability; problems with access to the health IT application due to older age, low income, education, cognitive impairment, and other factors; low computer literacy in patients and clinicians; insufficient basic formal training in health IT applications; physicians' concerns about more work; workflow issues; problems related to new system implementation, including concerns about confidentiality of patient information; depersonalization; incompatibility with current health care practices; lack of standardization; and problems with reimbursement. Facilitators for the utilization of health IT included ease of use, perceived usefulness, efficiency of use, availability of support, comfort in use, and site location.

CONCLUSIONS: Despite marked heterogeneity in study characteristics and quality, substantial evidence exists confirming that health IT applications with PCC-related components have a positive effect on health care outcomes. positive effect on health care outcomes.


Clinical Comments

Family Medicine (FM)/General Practice (GP)

It is important to mangers of HMO but not to clinicians.

Internal Medicine

Very exhaustive review, but the abstract should have mentioned selection criteria RE: study design. It looks like RCT and non-randomised studies were eligible.

Psychiatry

Marked heterogeneity of studies preclude firm conclusions.

Register for free access to all Professional content

Register