Examining implementation outcomes in health information exchange systems: A scoping review

IF 4 2区 医学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Journal of Biomedical Informatics Pub Date : 2025-01-20 DOI:10.1016/j.jbi.2025.104782
Bonnie Lum , Navisha Weerasinghe , Charlene H. Chu , Dan Perri , Lisa Cranley
{"title":"Examining implementation outcomes in health information exchange systems: A scoping review","authors":"Bonnie Lum ,&nbsp;Navisha Weerasinghe ,&nbsp;Charlene H. Chu ,&nbsp;Dan Perri ,&nbsp;Lisa Cranley","doi":"10.1016/j.jbi.2025.104782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Health information exchange (HIE) facilitates the secure exchange of digital health data across disparate health systems and settings. The implementation of information technology projects in healthcare is complex, further complicated by the fact that implementation success, through the measure of implementation outcomes, has been inconsistently defined and evaluated. There is no known scoping review examining implementation success through implementation outcomes in the field of HIE technologies. The aim of this scoping review was to provide a synthesis of studies related to reported implementation outcomes of HIE solutions (and related interoperability technologies) with a goal to inform the implementation of large-scale HIE projects in the future.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A scoping review, guided by the Arksey and O’Malley Framework, was conducted in four databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science), gathering studies from January 2010 to June 2023. Studies that described the implementation of a technology supporting interoperability or HIE across different organizations and/or across different healthcare settings and described the evaluation of one or more implementation outcomes from the Implementation Outcome Framework (IOF) were included.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>37 studies were included in this review. The implementation outcome adoption was most frequently reported (n = 24). Fidelity and penetration were not reported. Few studies provided definitions for the outcomes being evaluated. Few studies provided details surrounding the stage of implementation as it relates to the outcome examined. No studies used the IOF or other similar implementation science evaluation frameworks.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This review highlights the existing gaps in the field of HIE/interoperability solutions implementation studies. Future studies should employ theoretical frameworks to guide their research, standardize language used to describe implementation outcomes, and expand knowledge of salient outcomes at varying stages of implementation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15263,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomedical Informatics","volume":"163 ","pages":"Article 104782"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomedical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046425000115","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Health information exchange (HIE) facilitates the secure exchange of digital health data across disparate health systems and settings. The implementation of information technology projects in healthcare is complex, further complicated by the fact that implementation success, through the measure of implementation outcomes, has been inconsistently defined and evaluated. There is no known scoping review examining implementation success through implementation outcomes in the field of HIE technologies. The aim of this scoping review was to provide a synthesis of studies related to reported implementation outcomes of HIE solutions (and related interoperability technologies) with a goal to inform the implementation of large-scale HIE projects in the future.

Methods

A scoping review, guided by the Arksey and O’Malley Framework, was conducted in four databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science), gathering studies from January 2010 to June 2023. Studies that described the implementation of a technology supporting interoperability or HIE across different organizations and/or across different healthcare settings and described the evaluation of one or more implementation outcomes from the Implementation Outcome Framework (IOF) were included.

Results

37 studies were included in this review. The implementation outcome adoption was most frequently reported (n = 24). Fidelity and penetration were not reported. Few studies provided definitions for the outcomes being evaluated. Few studies provided details surrounding the stage of implementation as it relates to the outcome examined. No studies used the IOF or other similar implementation science evaluation frameworks.

Conclusion

This review highlights the existing gaps in the field of HIE/interoperability solutions implementation studies. Future studies should employ theoretical frameworks to guide their research, standardize language used to describe implementation outcomes, and expand knowledge of salient outcomes at varying stages of implementation.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Journal of Biomedical Informatics 医学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
243
审稿时长
32 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Biomedical Informatics reflects a commitment to high-quality original research papers, reviews, and commentaries in the area of biomedical informatics methodology. Although we publish articles motivated by applications in the biomedical sciences (for example, clinical medicine, health care, population health, and translational bioinformatics), the journal emphasizes reports of new methodologies and techniques that have general applicability and that form the basis for the evolving science of biomedical informatics. Articles on medical devices; evaluations of implemented systems (including clinical trials of information technologies); or papers that provide insight into a biological process, a specific disease, or treatment options would generally be more suitable for publication in other venues. Papers on applications of signal processing and image analysis are often more suitable for biomedical engineering journals or other informatics journals, although we do publish papers that emphasize the information management and knowledge representation/modeling issues that arise in the storage and use of biological signals and images. System descriptions are welcome if they illustrate and substantiate the underlying methodology that is the principal focus of the report and an effort is made to address the generalizability and/or range of application of that methodology. Note also that, given the international nature of JBI, papers that deal with specific languages other than English, or with country-specific health systems or approaches, are acceptable for JBI only if they offer generalizable lessons that are relevant to the broad JBI readership, regardless of their country, language, culture, or health system.
期刊最新文献
PLAGCA: Predicting protein–ligand binding affinity with the graph cross-attention mechanism Integrating Mendelian randomization and literature-mined evidence for breast cancer risk factors. A graph neural network explainability strategy driven by key subgraph connectivity Ontology-driven identification of inconsistencies in clinical data: A case study in lung cancer phenotyping Uncovering hidden subtypes in dementia: An unsupervised machine learning approach to dementia diagnosis and personalization of care
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1