Human resource information systems in health care: a systematic evidence review

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review aimed to: (1) determine the prevalence and scope of existing research on human resource information systems (HRIS) in health organizations; (2) analyze, classify, and synthesize evidence on the processes and impacts of HRIS development, implementation, and adoption; and (3) generate recommendations for HRIS research, practice, and policy, with reference to the needs of different stakeholders.

Methods: A structured search strategy was used to interrogate 10 electronic databases indexing research from the health, social, management, technology, and interdisciplinary sciences, alongside gray literature sources and reference lists of qualifying studies. There were no restrictions on language or publication year. Two reviewers screened publications, extracted data, and coded findings according to the innovation stages covered in the studies. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist was adopted to assess study quality. The process of study selection was charted using a Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) diagram.

Results: Of the 6824 publications identified by the search strategy, 68, covering 42 studies, were included for final analysis. Research on HRIS in health was interdisciplinary, often atheoretical, conducted primarily in the hospital sector of high-income economies, and largely focused uncritically on use and realized benefits.

Discussion and conclusions: While studies of HRIS in health exist, the overall lack of evaluative research raises unanswered questions about their capacity to improve quality and efficiency and enable learning health systems, as well as how sociotechnical complexity influences implementation and effectiveness. We offer this analysis to decision makers and managers considering or currently implementing an HRIS, and make recommendations for further research.

Trial registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42015023581. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42015023581#.VYu1BPlVjDU .

Keywords: eHealth; health care management; human resource information systems; information systems; systematic review.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram. ^aDatabase has limitations on the number of keywords, therefore the search had to be run several times to ensure that all search query keywords were included (please see⁹). ^bBook reviews, front and back covers, copyright notice, title pages, collection of conference proceedings’ descriptions, tables of contents, press releases, announcements, descriptions of issues, advertisements, bulletins, questionnaires, notices of retraction, chair’s messages, keynotes, plenary talks, welcome messages, news published in journals and magazines that have “news” in their title and news published by companies that do not provide any analytical or research materials, presentation description, very brief cases and analytical materials published in newspaper and magazines, company profiles, advertising/marketing articles. ^cArticles not related to HRIS in health organizations, research on HR practices in health organizations that do not defer to use of ICT in relation to HR activities. ^dArticles where no abstract was available or where title and abstract did not give sufficient detail to judge eligibility, articles on HRIS that do not specify the industry/sector in which they were implemented, articles on generic ERP/HIS that do not specify the module/functionality and/or industry/sector in which they were implemented. ^ePotentially relevant articles referring to HRIS in health organizations. ^fArticles focused on computer science models (eg, software specification) or management science models (eg, creating algorithms to enable staffing and scheduling in health organizations). ^gGeneric analyses of principles, benefits, requirements, implementation methods of HRIS in health organizations, or pure market research.

Figure 2.

Types of publications on HRIS by year.

Figure 3.

HRM practices examined in the included studies. ^aOut of scope of this review (please see⁹). ^bNot mentioned in any of the qualifying studies. Solid line ovals: existing Foster’s e-HRM landscape categories. Dashed line ovals, text in italic: categories added to Foster’s e-HRM landscape.