Electronic tools for health information exchange: an evidence-based analysis

Abstract

Background: As patients experience transitions in care, there is a need to share information between care providers in an accurate and timely manner. With the push towards electronic medical records and other electronic tools (eTools) (and away from paper-based health records) for health information exchange, there remains uncertainty around the impact of eTools as a form of communication.

Objective: To examine the impact of eTools for health information exchange in the context of care coordination for individuals with chronic disease in the community.

Data sources: A literature search was performed on April 26, 2012, using OVID MEDLINE, OVID MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, OVID EMBASE, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Wiley Cochrane Library, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, for studies published until April 26, 2012 (no start date limit was applied).

Review methods: A systematic literature search was conducted, and meta-analysis conducted where appropriate. Outcomes of interest fell into 4 categories: health services utilization, disease-specific clinical outcomes, process-of-care indicators, and measures of efficiency. The quality of the evidence was assessed individually for each outcome. Expert panels were assembled for stakeholder engagement and contextualization.

Results: Eleven articles were identified (4 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies). There was moderate quality evidence of a reduction in hospitalizations, hospital length of stay, and emergency department visits following the implementation of an electronically generated laboratory report with recommendations based on clinical guidelines. The evidence showed no difference in disease-specific outcomes; there was no evidence of a positive impact on process-of-care indicators or measures of efficiency.

Limitations: A limited body of research specifically examined eTools for health information exchange in the population and setting of interest. This evidence included a combination of study designs and was further limited by heterogeneity in individual technologies and settings in which they were implemented.

Conclusions: There is evidence that the right eTools in the right environment and context can significantly impact health services utilization. However, the findings from this evidence-based analysis raise doubts about the ability of eTools with care-coordination capabilities to independently improve the quality of outpatient care. While eTools may be able to support and sustain processes, inefficiencies embedded in the health care system may require more than automation alone to resolve.

Plain language summary: Patients with chronic diseases often work with many different health care providers. To ensure smooth transitions from one setting to the next, health care providers must share information and coordinate care effectively. Electronic medical records (eTools) are being used more and more to coordinate patient care, but it is not yet known whether they are more effective than paper-based health records. In this analysis, we reviewed the evidence for the use of eTools to exchange information and coordinate care for people with chronic diseases in the community. There was some evidence that eTools reduced the number of hospital and emergency department visits, as well as patients' length of stay in the hospital, but there was no evidence that eTools improved the overall quality of patient care.

Figure 1:. Example of Complex Flow of Information Involved in Care Coordination

Figure 2:. Citation Flow Chart

Figure 3:. Pooled Effect Estimate of Foot Examinations Conducted in Observational Studies

Figure 4:. Subgroup Analysis: Process-of-Care Outcomes By Disease, Care Coordination Aspect, and Technology