Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care.

Key Summary Points Health information technology has been shown to improve quality by increasing adherence to guidelines, enhancing disease surveillance, and decreasing medication errors. Much of the evidence on quality improvement relates to primary and secondary preventive care. The major efficiency benefit has been decreased utilization of care. Effect on time utilization is mixed. Empirically measured cost data are limited and inconclusive. Most of the high-quality literature regarding multifunctional health information technology systems comes from 4 benchmark research institutions. Little evidence is available on the effect of multifunctional commercially developed systems. Little evidence is available on interoperability and consumer health information technology. A major limitation of the literature is its generalizability. Health care experts, policymakers, payers, and consumers consider health information technologies, such as electronic health records and computerized provider order entry, to be critical to transforming the health care industry (1-7). Information management is fundamental to health care delivery (8). Given the fragmented nature of health care, the large volume of transactions in the system, the need to integrate new scientific evidence into practice, and other complex information management activities, the limitations of paper-based information management are intuitively apparent. While the benefits of health information technology are clear in theory, adapting new information systems to health care has proven difficult and rates of use have been limited (9-11). Most information technology applications have centered on administrative and financial transactions rather than on delivering clinical care (12). The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality asked us to systematically review evidence on the costs and benefits associated with use of health information technology and to identify gaps in the literature in order to provide organizations, policymakers, clinicians, and consumers an understanding of the effect of health information technology on clinical care (see evidence report at www.ahrq.gov). From among the many possible benefits and costs of implementing health information technology, we focus here on 3 important domains: the effects of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs. Methods Analytic Frameworks We used expert opinion and literature review to develop analytic frameworks (Table) that describe the components involved with implementing health information technology, types of health information technology systems, and the functional capabilities of a comprehensive health information technology system (13). We modified a framework for clinical benefits from the Institute of Medicine's 6 aims for care (2) and developed a framework for costs using expert consensus that included measures such as initial costs, ongoing operational and maintenance costs, fraction of health information technology penetration, and productivity gains. Financial benefits were divided into monetized benefits (that is, benefits expressed in dollar terms) and nonmonetized benefits (that is, benefits that could not be directly expressed in dollar terms but could be assigned dollar values). Table. Health Information Technology Frameworks Data Sources and Search Strategy We performed 2 searches (in November 2003 and January 2004) of the English-language literature indexed in MEDLINE (1995 to January 2004) using a broad set of terms to maximize sensitivity. (See the full list of search terms and sequence of queries in the full evidence report at www.ahrq.gov.) We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Periodical Abstracts Database; hand-searched personal libraries kept by content experts and project staff; and mined bibliographies of articles and systematic reviews for citations. We asked content experts to identify unpublished literature. Finally, we asked content experts and peer reviewers to identify newly published articles up to April 2005. Study Selection and Classification Two reviewers independently selected for detailed review the following types of articles that addressed the workings or implementation of a health technology system: systematic reviews, including meta-analyses; descriptive qualitative reports that focused on exploration of barriers; and quantitative reports. We classified quantitative reports as hypothesis-testing if the investigators compared data between groups or across time periods and used statistical tests to assess differences. We further categorized hypothesis-testing studies (for example, randomized and nonrandomized, controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies) according to whether a concurrent comparison group was used. Hypothesis-testing studies without a concurrent comparison group included those using simple prepost, time-series, and historical control designs. Remaining hypothesis-testing studies were classified as cross-sectional designs and other. We classified quantitative reports as a predictive analysis if they used methods such as statistical modeling or expert panel estimates to predict what might happen with implementation of health information technology rather than what has happened. These studies typically used hybrid methodsfrequently mixing primary data collection with secondary data collection plus expert opinion and assumptionsto make quantitative estimates for data that had otherwise not been empirically measured. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit studies generally fell into this group. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers independently appraised and extracted details of selected articles using standardized abstraction forms and resolved discrepancies by consensus. We then used narrative synthesis methods to integrate findings into descriptive summaries. Each institution that accounted for more than 5% of the total sample of 257 papers was designated as a benchmark research leader. We grouped syntheses by institution and by whether the systems were commercially or internally developed. Role of the Funding Sources This work was produced under Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality contract no. 2002. In addition to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, this work was also funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The funding sources had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the study or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Data Synthesis Literature Selection Overview Of 867 articles, we rejected 141 during initial screening: 124 for not having health information technology as the subject, 4 for not reporting relevant outcomes, and 13 for miscellaneous reasons (categories not mutually exclusive). Of the remaining 726 articles, we excluded 469 descriptive reports that did not examine barriers (Figure). We recorded details of and summarized each of the 257 articles that we did include in an interactive database (healthit.ahrq.gov/tools/rand) that serves as the evidence table for our report (14). Twenty-four percent of all studies came from the following 4 benchmark institutions: 1) the Regenstrief Institute, 2) Brigham and Women's Hospital/Partners Health Care, 3) the Department of Veterans Affairs, and 4) LDS Hospital/Intermountain Health Care. Figure. Search flow for health information technology ( HIT ) literature. Pediatrics Types and Functions of Technology Systems The reports addressed the following types of primary systems: decision support aimed at providers (63%), electronic health records (37%), and computerized provider order entry (13%). Specific functional capabilities of systems that were described in reports included electronic documentation (31%), order entry (22%), results management (19%), and administrative capabilities (18%). Only 8% of the described systems had specific consumer health capabilities, and only 1% had capabilities that allowed systems from different facilities to connect with each other and share data interoperably. Most studies (n= 125) assessed the effect of the systems in the outpatient setting. Of the 213 hypothesis-testing studies, 84 contained some data on costs. Several studies assessed interventions with limited functionality, such as stand-alone decision support systems (15-17). Such studies provide limited information about issues that today's decision makers face when selecting and implementing health information technology. Thus, we preferentially highlight in the following paragraphs studies that were conducted in the United States, that had empirically measured data on multifunctional systems, and that included health information and data storage in the form of electronic documentation or order-entry capabilities. Predictive analyses were excluded. Seventy-six studies met these criteria: 54 from the 4 benchmark leaders and 22 from other institutions. Data from Benchmark Institutions The health information technology systems evaluated by the benchmark leaders shared many characteristics. All the systems were multifunctional and included decision support, all were internally developed by research experts at the respective academic institutions, and all had capabilities added incrementally over several years. Furthermore, most reported studies of these systems used research designs with high internal validity (for example, randomized, controlled trials). Appendix Table 1 (18-71) provides a structured summary of each study from the 4 benchmark institutions. This table also includes studies that met inclusion criteria not highlighted in this synthesis (26, 27, 30, 39, 40, 53, 62, 65, 70, 71). The data supported 5 primary themes (3 directly r