Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Jan 18;8(1):e1000387.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000387.

The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview

Affiliations

The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview

Ashly D Black et al. PLoS Med. .

Abstract

Background: There is considerable international interest in exploiting the potential of digital solutions to enhance the quality and safety of health care. Implementations of transformative eHealth technologies are underway globally, often at very considerable cost. In order to assess the impact of eHealth solutions on the quality and safety of health care, and to inform policy decisions on eHealth deployments, we undertook a systematic review of systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness and consequences of various eHealth technologies on the quality and safety of care.

Methods and findings: We developed novel search strategies, conceptual maps of health care quality, safety, and eHealth interventions, and then systematically identified, scrutinised, and synthesised the systematic review literature. Major biomedical databases were searched to identify systematic reviews published between 1997 and 2010. Related theoretical, methodological, and technical material was also reviewed. We identified 53 systematic reviews that focused on assessing the impact of eHealth interventions on the quality and/or safety of health care and 55 supplementary systematic reviews providing relevant supportive information. This systematic review literature was found to be generally of substandard quality with regards to methodology, reporting, and utility. We thematically categorised eHealth technologies into three main areas: (1) storing, managing, and transmission of data; (2) clinical decision support; and (3) facilitating care from a distance. We found that despite support from policymakers, there was relatively little empirical evidence to substantiate many of the claims made in relation to these technologies. Whether the success of those relatively few solutions identified to improve quality and safety would continue if these were deployed beyond the contexts in which they were originally developed, has yet to be established. Importantly, best practice guidelines in effective development and deployment strategies are lacking.

Conclusions: There is a large gap between the postulated and empirically demonstrated benefits of eHealth technologies. In addition, there is a lack of robust research on the risks of implementing these technologies and their cost-effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated, despite being frequently promoted by policymakers and "techno-enthusiasts" as if this was a given. In the light of the paucity of evidence in relation to improvements in patient outcomes, as well as the lack of evidence on their cost-effectiveness, it is vital that future eHealth technologies are evaluated against a comprehensive set of measures, ideally throughout all stages of the technology's life cycle. Such evaluation should be characterised by careful attention to socio-technical factors to maximise the likelihood of successful implementation and adoption.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

BM has received research grants from Intel, Tunstall, Chief Scientist Office, and NHS Lothian to explore the use of Telehealthcare in long-term conditions. AS is on the PLoS Medicine Editorial Board.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

References

    1. Catwell L, Sheikh A. Evaluating eHealth interventions. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000126. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000126. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Department of Health, Chairman, London: The Stationary Office; 2000. An organisation with a memory: report of an expert group of learning from adverse events in the NHS.
    1. Department of Health, Chief Pharmaceutical Officer. London: The Stationary Office; 2004. Building a safer NHS for patients: improving medication safety.
    1. Institute of Medicine. Washington (D.C.): National Academy Press; 2000. To err is human: building a safer health system.
    1. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality Health Care in America. Washington (D.C.): National Academy Press; 2001. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century.

Publication types

MeSH terms