The challenge of benchmarking health systems: is ICT innovation capacity more systemic than organizational dependent?

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research

Luís Velez Lapão¹ 

[1] Global Health and Tropical Medicine, WHO Collaborating Center for Health Workforce Policy and Planning, Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

关键词: Innovation;    Benchmarking;    Complexity;    Health policies;    eHealth;    ICT;   

Others  :  1223849
DOI  :  10.1186/s13584-015-0036-5

 received in 2015-07-10, accepted in 2015-07-24,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

The article by Catan et al. presents a benchmarking exercise comparing Israel and Portugal on the implementation of Information and Communication Technologies in the healthcare sector. Special attention was given to e-Health and m-Health. The authors collected information via a set of interviews with key stakeholders. They compared two different cultures and societies, which have reached slightly different implementation outcomes. Although the comparison is very enlightening, it is also challenging.

Benchmarking exercises present a set of challenges, such as the choice of methodologies and the assessment of the impact on organizational strategy. Precise benchmarking methodology is a valid tool for eliciting information about alternatives for improving health systems. However, many beneficial interventions, which benchmark as effective, fail to translate into meaningful healthcare outcomes across contexts. There is a relationship between results and the innovational and competitive environments.

Differences in healthcare governance and financing models are well known; but little is known about their impact on Information and Communication Technology implementation. The article by Catan et al. provides interesting clues about this issue. Public systems (such as those of Portugal, UK, Sweden, Spain, etc.) present specific advantages and disadvantages concerning Information and Communication Technology development and implementation. Meanwhile, private systems based fundamentally on insurance packages, (such as Israel, Germany, Netherlands or USA) present a different set of advantages and disadvantages - especially a more open context for innovation.

Challenging issues from both the Portuguese and Israeli cases will be addressed. Clearly, more research is needed on both benchmarking methodologies and on ICT implementation strategies.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Lapão.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Catan G, Espanha R, Mendes RV, Toren O, Chinitz D. The impact of ehealth and mhealth on doctor behavior and patient involvement: an Israeli and Portuguese comparative approach. Israel J Health Policy Res. 2014; 4:41. BioMed Central Full Text
• [2]Goh S, Richards G. Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations. Euro Manag J. 1997; 15(5):575-583.
• [3]Gomes R, Lapão LV. The adoption of IT security standards in a healthcare environment. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008; 136:765.
• [4]Lapão LV. Survey on the Status of the Hospital Information Systems in Portugal. Methods Inf Med. 2007; 46:493-499.
• [5]Gomes P, Lapão LV. The role of a nation-wide information system in improving the access to surgery in Portugal. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009; 150:71-75.
• [6]Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. Complexity science: The challenge of complexity in health care. British Med J. 2001; 323(7313):625.
• [7]Ludwick DA, Doucette J. Adopting electronic medical records in primary care: lessons learned from health information systems implementation experience in seven countries. Int J Med Inform. 2009; 78(1):22-31.
• [8]Kuhn KA, Giuse DA, Lapao L, Wurst SHR. Expanding the scope of health information systems-from hospitals to regional networks, to national infrastructures, and beyond. Methods Inf Med. 2007; 46(4):500-502.
• [9]Anderson RM, Funnell MM. Patient empowerment: myths and misconceptions. Patient Educ Couns. 2010; 79(3):277-282.
• [10]Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis JL, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10(suppl 1):35-48.
• [11]Ash JS, Anderson NR, Tarczy-Hornoch P. People and organizational issues in research systems implementation. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008; 15(3):283-289.
• [12]Seto E. Cost comparison between telemonitoring and usual care of heart failure: a systematic review. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2008; 14(7):679-686.
• [13]Syverson, C. What determines productivity? Journal of Economic Literature. 2011;49:(2)326–365 
• [14]Vives X. Innovation and Competitive Pressure*. J Indust Econ. 2008; 56(3):419-469.
• [15]Mandl KD, Kohane IS. Escaping the EHR trap—the future of health IT. New Eng J Med. 2012; 366(24):2240-2242.
• [16]Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009; 4(1):50. BioMed Central Full Text