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
. 2022 Nov 10;24(11):e40124.
doi: 10.2196/40124.

Effects of Hospital Digitization on Clinical Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction: Nationwide Multiple Regression Analysis Across German Hospitals

Philip von Wedel  1 , Christian Hagist  1 , Jan-David Liebe  2 , Moritz Esdar  3 , Ursula Hübner  3 , Christoph Pross  4
Affiliations

Effects of Hospital Digitization on Clinical Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction: Nationwide Multiple Regression Analysis Across German Hospitals

Philip von Wedel et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: The adoption of health information technology (HIT) by health care providers is commonly believed to improve the quality of care. Policy makers in the United States and Germany follow this logic and deploy nationwide HIT adoption programs to fund hospital investments in digital technologies. However, scientific evidence for the beneficial effects of HIT on care quality at a national level remains mostly US based, is focused on electronic health records (EHRs), and rarely accounts for the quality of digitization from a hospital user perspective.

Objective: This study aimed to examine the effects of digitization on clinical outcomes and patient experience in German hospitals. Hence, this study adds to the small stream of literature in this field outside the United States. It goes beyond assessing the effects of mere HIT adoption and also considers user-perceived HIT value. In addition, the impact of a variety of technologies beyond EHRs was examined.

Methods: Multiple linear regression models were estimated using emergency care outcomes, elective care outcomes, and patient satisfaction as dependent variables. The adoption and user-perceived value of HIT represented key independent variables, and case volume, hospital size, ownership status, and teaching status were included as controls. Care outcomes were captured via risk-adjusted, observed-to-expected outcome ratios for patients who had stroke, myocardial infarction, or hip replacement. The German Patient Experience Questionnaire of Weisse Liste provided information on patient satisfaction. Information on the adoption and user-perceived value of 10 subdomains of HIT and EHRs was derived from the German 2020 Healthcare IT Report.

Results: Statistical analysis was based on an overall sample of 383 German hospitals. The analyzed data set suggested no significant effect of HIT or EHR adoption on clinical outcomes or patient satisfaction. However, a higher user-perceived value or quality of the installed tools did improve outcomes. Emergency care outcomes benefited from user-friendly overall digitization (β=-.032; P=.04), which was especially driven by the user-friendliness of admission HIT (β=-.023; P=.07). Elective care outcomes were positively impacted by user-friendly EHR installations (β=-.138; P=.008). Similarly, the results suggested user-friendly, overall digitization to have a moderate positive effect on patient satisfaction (β=-.009; P=.01).

Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that hospital digitization is not an end in itself. Policy makers and hospitals are well advised to not only focus on the mere adoption of digital technologies but also continuously work toward digitization that is perceived as valuable by physicians and nurses who rely on it every day. Furthermore, hospital digitization strategies should consider that the assumed benefits of single technologies are not realized across all care domains.

Keywords: clinical outcomes; electronic health records; health care information technology; hospital digitization; patient satisfaction; quality of care; user-perceived value.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: For transparency purposes, the authors declare that apart from his research positions, CP currently works at Stryker GmbH & Co. KG as Director Market Access, Health Economics, and Government Affairs.

References

    1. Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, Blumenthal D. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011 Mar;30(3):464–71. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0178.30/3/464 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, Morton SC, Shekelle PG. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006 May 16;144(10):742–52. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-10-200605160-00125. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/0003-4819-144-10-200605160-0... 0000605-200605160-00125 - DOI - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kruse CS, Beane A. Health information technology continues to show positive effect on medical outcomes: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Feb 05;20(2):e41. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8793. https://www.jmir.org/2018/2/e41/ v20i2e41 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McCullough JS, Casey M, Moscovice I, Prasad S. The effect of health information technology on quality in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010 Apr;29(4):647–54. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0155.29/4/647 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jiang F, Jiang Y, Zhi H, Dong Y, Li H, Ma S, Wang Y, Dong Q, Shen H, Wang Y. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: past, present and future. Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2017 Dec;2(4):230–43. doi: 10.1136/svn-2017-000101. https://svn.bmj.com/lookup/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=29507784 svn-2017-000101 - DOI - PMC - PubMed