Advancing Patient-Centered Pediatric Care Through Health Information Exchange: Update From the American Health Information Community Personalized Health Care Workgroup

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 123 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. S122-S124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristin A. Brinner ◽  
Gregory J. Downing
2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark E. Frisse

Patients and their physicians frequently make important health care decisions with incomplete information. Memory fails; records are incomplete; the onset of significant events is confused with other life stories; and even the most basic information about medications, laboratory tests, allergies, and problems is often the result of guesswork. As providers and as patients, we suffer because information vital to health care is not available when and where it is needed. Data required for care are dispersed across various settings and represented in a range of formats; incentives to bring these data together do not exist.In recent years, four specific approaches have emerged to address patient-centered information access. The first model attempts to consolidate all care into a single care delivery and financing system. This model — prevalent in many European countries — is to some degree extant at Kaiser-Permanente and other integrated care and financing systems. This model is ideal if and when one organization is responsible for all care delivery and financing. Such models present “one-stop shopping” for managing health information, coordinating care, communicating with providers and support groups, and ensuring both payment and accountability.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Sarzynski ◽  
Mark Ensberg ◽  
Amy Parkinson ◽  
Laurie Fitzpatrick ◽  
Laura Houdeshell ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim M Unertl ◽  
Kevin B Johnson ◽  
Cynthia S Gadd ◽  
Nancy M Lorenzi

Author(s):  
Alice Noblin ◽  
Kelly McLendon ◽  
Steven Shim

Florida began the journey to health information connectivity in 2004 under Governor Jeb Bush. Initially these efforts were funded by grants, but due to the downturn in the economy, the state was unable to support growth in 2008. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided funding to further expand health information exchange efforts across the country. As a result, Florida is now able to move forward and make progress in information sharing. Harris Corporation was contracted to provide some basic services to the health care industry in 2011. However, challenges remain as privacy and security regulations are put in place to protect patients’ information. With two seemingly opposing mandates, sharing the information versus protecting the information, challenges continue to impede progress.


Author(s):  
Alice M. Noblin ◽  
Kendall Cortelyou-Ward ◽  
Ashley Rutherford

The Florida Health Information Exchange has grown over the years since its inception in 2004. Harris Corporation was contracted to provide some basic services to the health care industry in 2011 and this relationship has continued to the present time. As services have expanded, challenges have arisen. With disaster preparedness and business continuity an important part of continuity of care and health information technology initiatives, this paper will consider how a “network of networks” can be of assistance when natural disasters strike.


2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Sprivulis ◽  
Jan Walker ◽  
Douglas Johnston ◽  
Eric Pan ◽  
Julia Adler-Milstein ◽  
...  

Objective: To estimate costs and benefits for Australia of implementing health information exchange interoperability among health care providers and other health care stakeholders. Design: A cost?benefit model considering four levels of interoperability (Level 1, paper based; Level 2, machine transportable; Level 3, machine readable; and Level 4, machine interpretable) was developed for Government-funded health services, then validated by expert review. Results: Roll-out costs for Level 3 and Level 4 interoperability were projected to be $21.5 billion and $14.2 billion, respectively, and steady-state costs, $1470 million and $933 million per annum, respectively. Level 3 interoperability would achieve steadystate savings of $1820 million, and Level 4 interoperability, $2990 million, comprising transactions of: laboratory $1180 million (39%); other providers, $893 million (30%); imaging centre, $680 million (23%); pharmacy, $213 million (7%) and public health, $27 million (1%). Net steady-state Level 4 benefits are projected to be $2050 million: $1710 million more than Level 3 benefits of $348 million, reflecting reduced interface costs for Level 4 interoperability due to standardisation of the semantic content of Level 4 messages. Conclusions: Benefits to both providers and society will accrue from the implementation of interoperability. Standards are needed for the semantic content of clinical messages, in addition to message exchange standards, for the full benefits of interoperability to be realised. An Australian Government policy position supporting such standards is recommended.


Author(s):  
Jared Sparks

Personalized health care (PHC) is a broad term that describes how we leverage our growing understanding of the human body and developing technology to provide more effective health care. PHC requires that health care providers consider prevention and treatment in the context of available advanced technologies, best practices, and known variables that define us as individuals. These variables or characteristics may run the gamut from genetic, to biologic, to environmental, to even personality, personal values, and choice. By considering how these characteristics interact with specific illnesses and available interventions, outcomes can be improved. The purpose of this article is to: describe PHC’s current conceptualization including relationship with personalized medicine and patient-centered models of care, discuss its development and application by specific stakeholders, and review pertinent economic, legislative, and ethical issues.


2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 302-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary L. Cochran ◽  
Lina Lander ◽  
Marsha Morien ◽  
Daniel E. Lomelin ◽  
Harlan Sayles ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 299-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Guerrazzi

The sharing of information among various care providers is becoming an essential feature of health care systems, and many countries are now adopting policies to foster health information exchange, defined as the electronic transfer of data or information among health care organizations involved in the delivery of care. Given the increasing adoption of this type of policy in several Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, it is important to compare experiences from different countries, because policy adoption in one country can be explained more comprehensively and coherently through comparison with similar policies adopted in other nations. To make a more meaningful cross-country comparison, this article identifies a taxonomy of health systems, and it analyzes institutional and resource-based factors related to health information exchange adoption and how they differ in three main types of health systems: the National Health Service, social health insurance, and private health insurance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document