数字医疗机构的新管理:德国实施电子病历的联合决策陷阱的出路?

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Economics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-11 DOI:10.1017/S1744133123000142
Tugce Schmitt
{"title":"数字医疗机构的新管理:德国实施电子病历的联合决策陷阱的出路?","authors":"Tugce Schmitt","doi":"10.1017/S1744133123000142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Fragmentation in health systems leads to discontinuities in the provision of health services, reduces the effectiveness of interventions, and increases costs. In international comparisons, Germany is notably lagging in the context of healthcare (data) integration. Despite various political efforts spanning decades, intersectoral care and integrated health data remain controversial and are still in an embryonic phase in the country. Even more than 2 years after its launch, electronic health record (<i>elektronische Patientenakte</i>; ePA) users in Germany constitute only 1 per cent of the statutorily insured population, and ongoing political debates suggest that the path to broader coverage is fraught with complexities. By exploring the main stakeholders in the existing (fragmented) health system governance in Germany and their sectoral interests, this paper examines the implementation of ePA through the lens of corporatism, offering insights based on an institutional decision theory. The central point is that endeavours to better integrate health data for clinical care, scientific research and evidence-informed policymaking in Germany will need to address the roles of corporatism and self-governance.</p>","PeriodicalId":46836,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Policy and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New governance of the digital health agency: a way out of the joint decision trap to implement electronic health records in Germany?\",\"authors\":\"Tugce Schmitt\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1744133123000142\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Fragmentation in health systems leads to discontinuities in the provision of health services, reduces the effectiveness of interventions, and increases costs. In international comparisons, Germany is notably lagging in the context of healthcare (data) integration. Despite various political efforts spanning decades, intersectoral care and integrated health data remain controversial and are still in an embryonic phase in the country. Even more than 2 years after its launch, electronic health record (<i>elektronische Patientenakte</i>; ePA) users in Germany constitute only 1 per cent of the statutorily insured population, and ongoing political debates suggest that the path to broader coverage is fraught with complexities. By exploring the main stakeholders in the existing (fragmented) health system governance in Germany and their sectoral interests, this paper examines the implementation of ePA through the lens of corporatism, offering insights based on an institutional decision theory. The central point is that endeavours to better integrate health data for clinical care, scientific research and evidence-informed policymaking in Germany will need to address the roles of corporatism and self-governance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46836,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Economics Policy and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Economics Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133123000142\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133123000142","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医疗系统的分散导致医疗服务的不连续性,降低了干预措施的有效性,并增加了成本。在国际比较中,德国在医疗保健(数据)整合方面明显落后。尽管数十年来在政治上做出了各种努力,但跨部门医疗和整合医疗数据在德国仍存在争议,而且仍处于萌芽阶段。即使在电子病历(elektronische Patientenakte;ePA)推出两年多之后,德国的电子病历用户也仅占法定投保人口的 1%,而持续不断的政治辩论表明,实现更广泛覆盖的道路充满了复杂性。通过探究德国现有(分散的)医疗系统治理中的主要利益相关者及其部门利益,本文从公司主义的视角审视了 ePA 的实施情况,提出了基于制度决策理论的见解。本文的核心观点是,德国要想更好地整合医疗数据,用于临床护理、科学研究和循证决策,就必须处理好公司主义和自治的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
New governance of the digital health agency: a way out of the joint decision trap to implement electronic health records in Germany?

Fragmentation in health systems leads to discontinuities in the provision of health services, reduces the effectiveness of interventions, and increases costs. In international comparisons, Germany is notably lagging in the context of healthcare (data) integration. Despite various political efforts spanning decades, intersectoral care and integrated health data remain controversial and are still in an embryonic phase in the country. Even more than 2 years after its launch, electronic health record (elektronische Patientenakte; ePA) users in Germany constitute only 1 per cent of the statutorily insured population, and ongoing political debates suggest that the path to broader coverage is fraught with complexities. By exploring the main stakeholders in the existing (fragmented) health system governance in Germany and their sectoral interests, this paper examines the implementation of ePA through the lens of corporatism, offering insights based on an institutional decision theory. The central point is that endeavours to better integrate health data for clinical care, scientific research and evidence-informed policymaking in Germany will need to address the roles of corporatism and self-governance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Economics Policy and Law
Health Economics Policy and Law HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: International trends highlight the confluence of economics, politics and legal considerations in the health policy process. Health Economics, Policy and Law serves as a forum for scholarship on health policy issues from these perspectives, and is of use to academics, policy makers and health care managers and professionals. HEPL is international in scope, publishes both theoretical and applied work, and contains articles on all aspects of health policy. Considerable emphasis is placed on rigorous conceptual development and analysis, and on the presentation of empirical evidence that is relevant to the policy process.
期刊最新文献
Private equity involvement in primary care: the case of Ireland. Procedural fairness to recalibrate the power imbalance in health decision-making: comment on the report: 'Open and inclusive: Fair processes for financing universal health coverage'. Navigating conflicting expectations in addressing healthcare scarcity: a q-methodology study on the Dutch National Health Care Institute. Including carer health-related quality of life in NICE health technology assessments in the United Kingdom. The inefficient effects of non-clinical factors on health care costs.
×
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