A Brief Survey on Six Basic and Reduced eHealth Indicators in Seven Countries in 2017
02 April 2018
22 July 2018
05 September 2018 (online)
Background Holistic, ubiquitous support of patient-centered health care (eHealth) at all health care institutions and in patients' homes through information processing is increasingly supplementing institution-centered care. While eHealth indicators may measure the transition from institution-centered (e.g., hospital-centered) information processing to patient-centered information processing, collecting relevant and timely data for such indicators has been difficult.
Objectives This article aims to design some basic eHealth indicators, which are easily collected and measure how well information processing supports holistic patient-centered health care, and to evaluate penetrance of patient-centered health as measured by the indicators internationally via an expert survey.
Methods We identified six basic indicators that measure access of health care professionals, patients, and caregivers to the patient's health record data and the ability of providers, patients, and caregivers to add information in the patient's record. In a survey of international informatics experts, these indicators' penetrance were evaluated for Austria, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, South Korea, Sweden, and the United States in the summer of 2017.
Results The eHealth status measured by the indicators varied significantly between these seven countries. In Finland, most practices measured by the indicators were fully implemented whereas in Germany only one practice was partially realized.
Conclusion Progress in the implementation of practices that support patient-centered care could mainly be observed in those countries where the “political will” focused on achieving patient-centered care as opposed to an emphasis on institution-centered care. The six eHealth indicators seem to be useful for measuring national progress in patient-centered care. Future work will extend the number of countries analyzed.
Keywordshealth information exchanges - disease management (general) - health information systems - patient-centered care - connected health - health care - quality of care - international comparison
Each author is responsible for the values of indicators for her or his respective country. R.H. led the overall organization of this article and designed the survey. The six basic indicators were the outcome of discussions of R.H. with all authors, in particular with E.A. and S.K., who also contributed to the references.
Protection of Human and Animal Subjects
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 1 Reichertz PL. Hospital information systems--past, present, future. Int J Med Inform 2006; 75 (3–4): 282-299
- 2 Haux R. Health information systems - past, present, future. Int J Med Inform 2006; 75 (3–4): 268-281
- 3 Kuhn KA, Giuse DA. From hospital information systems to health information systems. Problems, challenges, perspectives. Methods Inf Med 2001; 40 (04) 275-287
- 4 Friedman CP, Rubin JC, Sullivan KJ. Toward an information infrastructure for global health improvement. Yearb Med Inform 2017; 26 (01) 16-23
- 5 Gonzalez Bernaldo de Quiros F, Dawidowski AR, Figar S. Representation of people's decisions in health information systems. A complementary approach for understanding health care systems and population health. Methods Inf Med 2017; 56 (Open): e13-e19
- 6 Almalki M, Gray K, Martin-Sanchez FJ. Refining the concepts of self-quantification needed for health self-management. A thematic literature review. Methods Inf Med 2017; 56 (01) 46-54
- 7 Arnrich B, Ersoy C, Mayora O, Dey A, Berthouze N, Kunze K. Wearable therapy - detecting information from wearables and mobiles that are relevant to clinical and self-directed therapy. Methods Inf Med 2017; 56 (01) 37-39
- 8 Gray K, Martin-Sanchez FJ, Lopez-Campos GH, Almalki M, Merolli M. Person-generated data in self-quantification. A health informatics research program. Methods Inf Med 2017; 56 (01) 40-45
- 9 World Health Assembly. Fifty-eighth Assembly (May 16–25, 2005), eHealth Resolution WHA58.28. Available at: http://www.who.int/healthacademy/media/WHA58-28-en.pdf . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 10 Healy JC. The WHO eHealth Resolution - eHealth for all by 2015?. Methods Inf Med 2007; 46 (01) 2-4
- 11 Al-Shorbaji N. The World Health Assembly resolutions on eHealth: eHealth in support of universal health coverage. Methods Inf Med 2013; 52 (06) 463-466
- 12 Haux R. My home is my hospital. Stud Health Technol Inform 2016; 226: 3-8
- 13 World Health Organization. Global Observatory for eHealth. Available at: http://www.who.int/goe/en/ . Accessed August 31, 2017
- 14 Kay M, Santos J. Report on the World Health Organization Global Observatory for eHealth strategic planning workshop, April 2008. Methods Inf Med 2008; 47 (04) 381-387
- 15 World Health Organization. Atlas of eHealth country profiles. Based on the findings of the second global survey on eHealth. Geneva: WHO Press; 2011 . Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44502/1/9789241564168_eng.pdf . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 16 Gray BH, Bowden T, Johansen I, Koch S. Electronic health records: an international perspective on “meaningful use”. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 2011; 28: 1-18
- 17 Hyppönen H, Ammenwerth E, de Keizer N. Exploring a methodology for eHealth indicator development. Stud Health Technol Inform 2012; 180: 338-342
- 18 Hyppönen H, Ammenwerth E, Nohr C, Faxvaag A, Walldius A. eHealth indicators: results of an expert workshop. Stud Health Technol Inform 2012; 180: 328-332
- 19 Hyppönen H, Faxvaag A, Gilstad H. , et al. Nordic eHealth indicators: organisation of research, first results and plan for the future. Stud Health Technol Inform 2013; 192: 273-277
- 20 Hyppönen H, Faxvaag A, Gilstad H. , et al. Vimarlund. Nordic eHealth Indicators. Organisation of Research, first results and the plan for the future. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers; 2013 . Available at: http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:700970/FULLTEXT01.pdf . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 21 Hyppönen H, Kangas M, Reponen J. , et al. Kaipio J. Nordic eHealth Benchmarking. Status 2014. Organisation of research, first results and the plan for the future. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers; 2015 . Available at: https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:821230/FULLTEXT01.pdf . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 22 Hyppönen H, Koch S, Faxvaag A. , et al. Nordic eHealth benchmarking. From piloting towards established practice. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers; 2017 . Available at: https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1093162/FULLTEXT01.pdf . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 23 Hyppönen H, Ronchi E, Adler-Milstein J. Health care performance indicators for health information systems. Stud Health Technol Inform 2016; 222: 181-194
- 24 Moen A, Hackl WO, Hofdijk J. , et al. eHealth in Europe – status and challenges. Yearb Med Inform 2013; 8: 59-63
- 25 Stanimirović D, Vintar M. Development of eHealth at a national level - comparative aspects and mapping of general success factors. Inform Health Soc Care 2014; 39 (02) 140-160
- 26 Vedlūga T, Mikulskienė B. Stakeholder driven indicators for eHealth performance management. Eval Program Plann 2017; 63: 82-92
- 27 Zelmer J, Ronchi E, Hyppönen H. , et al. International health IT benchmarking: learning from cross-country comparisons. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (02) 371-379
- 28 German Research Association. Proposals for safeguarding good scientific practice. Bonn; 1998. Available at: http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/rechtliche_rahmenbedingungen/gute_wissenschaftliche_praxis/self_regulation_98.pdf . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 29 Finnish National Data Repository KANTA. Available at: http://www.kanta.fi/en/web/ammattilaisille/earkiston-esittely . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 30 Hospital Authority of Hong Kong. Available at: http://www.ha.org.hk/visitor/ha_index.asp . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 31 Swedish eHealth Agency. Available at: https://www.ehalsomyndigheten.se/other-languages/english/ . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 32 Anslutna vårdgivare [connected health services, only in Swedish]. Available at: https://www.inera.se/Fordjupning/fordjupad-information-om-vara-tjanster/Nationell-patientoversikt/anslutna-vardgivare-i-npo/ . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 33 Indiana Health Exchange. Available at: http://www.ihie.org/ . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 34 Lehmann CU, Kressly S, Hart WWC, Johnson KB, Frisse ME. Barriers to pediatric health information exchange. Pediatrics 2017; 139 (05) e20162653
- 35 Surescripts Network Alliance. Available at: http://surescripts.com/ . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 36 National Health Insurance Service. ‘My Health Bank’. Available at: https://sis.nhis.or.kr/jsp/o/f/ggof010m00_00.jsp . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 37 Lee J-W, Cho K-H. Overview of National PHR in Korea: Introduction of South Korea's National PHR Portal My Health Bank. Available at: http://www.ehealth.org.hk/APEHRC2016/Speaker-Abstract/D2%20Semi%201135%20Prof%20Kyung%20Hee%20Cho.pdf . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 38 Available at: https://www.inera.se/globalassets/tjanster/journalen/inforande/bild-pa-anslutna-och-info-som-visas_2018-01-19.png . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 39 My KANTA pages. Available at: http://www.kanta.fi/web/ammattilaisille/omakanta2 . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 40 Personal Health Record KANTA. . Available at: http://www.kanta.fi/web/ammattilaisille/omatietovaranto . Accessed March 3, 2018
- 41 GBD 2015 Healthcare Access and Quality Collaborators. Electronic address: email@example.com; GBD 2015 Healthcare Access and Quality Collaborators. Healthcare Access and Quality Index based on mortality from causes amenable to personal health care in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2015: a novel analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 2017; 390 (10091): 231-266
- 42 International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA). Available at: http://imia-medinfo.org/wp/ . Accessed March 3, 2018