A qualitative study of health information technology in the Canadian public health system

BMC Public Health

David L Buckeridge¹  David W Bates³  Robyn Tamblyn²  Kate Zinszer² 

[1] Agence de la Santé et des services Sociaux de Montréal, 3725 Saint-Denis Rue, Montréal, QC H2L 1M3, Canada;Clinical and Health Informatics Research Group, McGill University, 1140 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, QC H3A 1A3, Canada;Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

关键词: Canada;    Public health;    Surveillance;    Informatics;    Electronic infrastructure;    Health information technology;   

Others  :  1162172
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-509

 received in 2012-07-27, accepted in 2013-05-16,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Although the adoption of health information technology (HIT) has advanced in Canada over the past decade, considerable challenges remain in supporting the development, broad adoption, and effective use of HIT in the public health system. Policy makers and practitioners have long recognized that improvements in HIT infrastructure are necessary to support effective and efficient public health practice. The objective of this study was to identify aspects of health information technology (HIT) policy related to public health in Canada that have succeeded, to identify remaining challenges, and to suggest future directions to improve the adoption and use of HIT in the public health system.

Methods

A qualitative case study was performed with 24 key stakeholders representing national and provincial organizations responsible for establishing policy and strategic direction for health information technology.

Results

Identified benefits of HIT in public health included improved communication among jurisdictions, increased awareness of the need for interoperable systems, and improvement in data standardization. Identified barriers included a lack of national vision and leadership, insufficient investment, and poor conceptualization of the priority areas for implementing HIT in public health.

Conclusions

The application of HIT in public health should focus on automating core processes and identifying innovative applications of HIT to advance public health outcomes. The Public Health Agency of Canada should develop the expertise to lead public health HIT policy and should establish a mechanism for coordinating public health stakeholder input on HIT policy.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Zinszer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Mukhi S, Aramini J, Kabani A: Contributing to communicable diseases intelligence management in Canada: CACMID meeting, March 2007, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2007, 18(6):353-356.
• [2]Wu S, Chaudhry B, Wang J, 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, 144(10):742-752.
• [3]Chandrasekar K: Use of information communication technology in communicable disease surveillance. Sri Lanka Journal of Bio-Medical Informatics 2011, 2(2):41-52.
• [4]Ward M, Brandsema P, Van Straten E, Bosman A: Electronic reporting improves timeliness and completeness of infectious disease notification, The Netherlands, 2003. Euro Surveill 2005, 10(1):27-30.
• [5]Faensen D, Claus H, Benzler J, Ammon A, Pfoch T, Breuer T, Krause G: SURVNET@RKI – A multistate electronic reporting system for communicable diseases. Euro Surveill 2006, 11(4):100-103.
• [6]World Health Organization: International Health Regulations. 2005. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241580410_eng.pdf webcite, Retrieved on 19 June, 2012
• [7]Sahal N, Reintjes R, Aro AR: Communicable diseases surveillance lessons learned from developed and developing countries: Literature review. Scand J Public Health 2009, 37:187-200.
• [8]Reintjes R, Thelen M, Reiche R, Csohán Á: Benchmarking national surveillance systems: a new tool for the comparison of communicable disease surveillance and control in Europe. Eur J Public Health 2007, 17(4):375-380.
• [9]Health Canada: Canada Health Action: Building on the Legacy – Volume 1 – The Final Report. 2012. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/pubs/renewal-renouv/1997-nfoh-fnss-v1/index-eng.php webcite , Retrieved on 12 April, 2012
• [10]Health Canada: Canada’s health infostructure: History. 2012. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/ehealth-esante/infostructure/hist-eng.php webcite, Retrieved on 12 April, 2012
• [11]KPMG LLP: Performance Evaluation of the Canada Health Infoway Public Health Surveillance Program. 2009. http://www2.infoway-inforoute.ca/documents/Infoway-PHS%20Evaluation-Final-March%202009%20-%20EN.pdf webcite, Retrieved on 6 March, 2012
• [12]Catz M, Bayne J: Canada Health Infoway – A pan-Canadian approach. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003, 2003:807.
• [13]Canada Health Infoway: Annual Report 2010/2011: Toward critical mass: Moving from availability to adoption. 2012. http://www2.infoway-inforoute.ca/Documents/ar/Annual_Report_2010-2011_en.pdf webcite, Retrieved on 6 March
• [14]Public Health Agency of Canada: National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health: Learning from SARS: Renewal of public health in Canada. 2012. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/sars-sras/naylor/ webcite, Retrieved on 13 March, 2012
• [15]Hodge T: Building bridges: Canada’s eHealth Initiative. 2012. http://accada2010.usask.ca/ACCADA_2010/Welcome.html webcite, Retrieved on 16 April, 2012
• [16]Jha AK, Doolan D, Grandt D, Scott T, Bates DW: The use of health information technology in seven nations. Int J Med Inform 2008, 77(12):848-854.
• [17]Rozenblum R, Jang Y, Zimlichman E, Salzberg C, Tamblyn M, Buckeridge D, Forster A, Bates DW, Tamblyn R: A qualitative study of Canada’s experience with the implementation of electronic health information technology. CMAJ 2011, 183(5):E281-E288.
• [18]Zimlichman E, Rozenblum R, Salzberg CA, Jang Y, Tamblyn M, Tamblyn R, Bates DW: Lessons from the Canadian national health information technology plan for the United States: opinions of key Canadian experts. JAMIA 2012, 19(3):453-459.
• [19]Webster PC: The pocketbook impact of electronic health records: Part 2 Fee-for-service billing is compatible with EHRs: Disagreed. CMAJ 2010, 182(8):753-754.
• [20]Hendy J, Reeves BC, Fulop N, Hutchings A, Masseria C: Challenges to implementing the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT): a qualitative study. BMJ 2005, 331:331-336.
• [21]Hendy J, Fulop N, Reeves BC, Hutchings A, Collin S: Implementing the NHS information technology programme: qualitative study of progress in acute trusts. BMJ 2007, 334:1360-1367.
• [22]Miller RH, Sim I: Physicians’ use of electronic medical records: barriers and solutions. Health Aff 2004, 23(2):116-126.
• [23]Valdes I, Kibbe DC, Tolleson G, Kunik ME, Peterson LA: Barriers to proliferation of electronic medical records. Inform Prim Care 2004, 12(1):3-9.
• [24]DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Rao SR, Donelan K, Ferris TG, Jha A, Kaushal R, Levy DE, Rosenbaum S, Shields AE, Blumenthal D: Electronic health records in ambulatory care — a national survey of physicians. N Engl J Med 2008, 359:50-60.
• [25]The National Alliance for Health Information Technology: Defining Key Health Information Technology Terms. 2012. http://www.nacua.org/documents/HealthInfoTechTerms.pdf webcite, Retrieved on 9 December, 2012
• [26]Creswell J: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009.
• [27]Overhage JM, Grannis S, McDonald CJ: A comparison of the completeness and timeliness of automated electronic laboratory reporting and spontaneous reporting of notifiable conditions. Am J Public Health 2008, 98(2):344-350.
• [28]Robertson A, Cresswell K, Takian A, Petrakaki D, Crowe S, Cornford T, Barber N, Avery A, Fernando B, Jacklin A, Prescott R, Klecun E, Paton J, Lichtner V, Quinn C, Ali M, Morrison Z, Jani Y, Waring J, Marsden K, Sheikh A: Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: qualitative analysis of interim results from a prospective national evaluation. BMJ 2010, 341:c4564.
• [29]Morrison Z, Robertson A, Cresswell K, Crowe S, Sheikh A: Understanding contrasting approaches to nationwide implementations of electronic health record systems: England, the USA and Australia. Journal of Health Engineering 2011, 2(1):25-42.
• [30]Blumenthal D, Tavenner M: The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med 2010, 363:501-504.
• [31]Mandl KD, Overhage JM, Wagner MM, Lober WB, Sebastini P, Mostashari F, Pavlin JA, Gesteland PH, Treadwell T, Koski E, Hutwagner L, Buckeridge DL, Aller RD, Grannis S: Implementing syndromic surveillance: a practical guide informed by the early experience. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004, 11(2):141-150.
• [32]Maxson ER, Jain SH, McKethan AN, Brammer C, Buntin MB, Cronin K, Mostashari F, Blumenthal D: Beacon communities aim to use health information technology to transform the delivery of care. Health Aff 2010, 29(9):1671-1677.
• [33]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Public Health Surveillance and Informatics Program Office (proposed)(PHSIPO). 2012. http://www.cdc.gov/osels/phsipo/index.html webcite, Retrieved on 19 April, 2012
• [34]Joint Public Health Informatics Taskforce: About JPHIT. 2012. http://jphit.org/ webcite, Retrieved on 19 April, 2012
• [35]Baker MG, Fidler DP: Global public health surveillance under new international health regulations. Emerg Infect Dis 2006, 12(7):1058-1065.