• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

IT saves lives and money

Ivor the Engineer

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
11,103
An interesting study demonstrating how judicious use of information technology in the healthcare setting can both save lives and money.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/169/2/108

Background Despite speculation that clinical information technologies will improve clinical and financial outcomes, few studies have examined this relationship in a large number of hospitals.

Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of urban hospitals in Texas using the Clinical Information Technology Assessment Tool, which measures a hospital's level of automation based on physician interactions with the information system. After adjustment for potential confounders, we examined whether greater automation of hospital information was associated with reduced rates of inpatient mortality, complications, costs, and length of stay for 167 233 patients older than 50 years admitted to responding hospitals between December 1, 2005, and May 30, 2006.

Results We received a sufficient number of responses from 41 of 72 hospitals (58%). For all medical conditions studied, a 10-point increase in the automation of notes and records was associated with a 15% decrease in the adjusted odds of fatal hospitalizations (0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.97). Higher scores in order entry were associated with 9% and 55% decreases in the adjusted odds of death for myocardial infarction and coronary artery bypass graft procedures, respectively. For all causes of hospitalization, higher scores in decision support were associated with a 16% decrease in the adjusted odds of complications (0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.90). Higher scores on test results, order entry, and decision support were associated with lower costs for all hospital admissions (–$110, –$132, and –$538, respectively; P < .05).
Conclusion Hospitals with automated notes and records, order entry, and clinical decision support had fewer complications, lower mortality rates, and lower costs.

Engineers rock!:D
 
The problem is when you let the civil servants run the projects, please see various UK NHS IT projects currently delayed and over budget.
 
But isn't the reliance on such systems setting them up for catastrophic failure? I mean, what if a program glitches? Power goes out? Hackers or malicious people get into the system?
 
But isn't the reliance on such systems setting them up for catastrophic failure? I mean, what if a program glitches? Power goes out? Hackers or malicious people get into the system?

One could raise similar concerns about a healthcare system's biological assets.:)

Power going out is covered, since hospitals have emergency generators (you don't want the lights going out while a surgeon is messing around with your insides).

The security of patient records is a real concern. The NHS system (still being trialed) requires smart cards to be inserted into a PC before patient records can be accessed. The parts of the records viewable is limited by the security clearance of the owner of the smart card.

More information can be found about the NHS IT project here:

http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/
 
IT saves lives and money

pennywise.jpg


Well, in this economy, I guess people will try anything...
 
Well, yeah, but I was thinking of extended periods when a generator may run out.
They don't happen.

Critical IT systems have multiply redundant functions such that an extended outage is unthinkable. Same with air traffic control computers. Same with stock market computers. Same with any critical systems where an outage would cost lives and/or money. They just don't happen.

Even on a government network where lives aren't on the line, the longest total outage I've ever experienced was only about an hour, and that was ten years or more ago. What's more common is that a particular application or function will go off the air for a short time before being restored by 24/7 support.
 
Well, yeah, but I was thinking of extended periods when a generator may run out.

Usually hospitals have drills to train people what to do in such a case. They revert back to doing things on paper then.

IT is great because of other reasons too, it makes research a lot easier, mostly because it forces doctors to document things in a predetermined way. This last thing is also why many people hate it, programs don't always do what you want them to do and you have to know the system well to find what you are looking for. It does prevent some often made mistakes though, because you can make it check for things like interactions between medications or warn you for certain allergies. You also see all the information that you would normally have to look for throughout the hospital (no more lost X-rays or results when you need them) and makes information transfer easier between doctors. Protection of privacy can be an issue though.
Having all the information at a mouseclick is great, but by now everyone seems to carry their "extended memory" with them anyway on their PDA.

SYL :)
 
Unfortunately, any IT person worth their salt is going to be charging well over 10x the hospital's janitors wages. Heck, probably 10x the lower paid nurses.
 
<snip>

Having all the information at a mouseclick is great, but by now everyone seems to carry their "extended memory" with them anyway on their PDA.

SYL :)

Are those PDAs sterilized between seeing different patients?

(Ivor looks down at his keyboard...:eek:)
 
IT is great because of other reasons too, it makes research a lot easier, mostly because it forces doctors to document things in a predetermined way. This last thing is also why many people hate it, programs don't always do what you want them to do and you have to know the system well to find what you are looking for. It does prevent some often made mistakes though, because you can make it check for things like interactions between medications or warn you for certain allergies. You also see all the information that you would normally have to look for throughout the hospital (no more lost X-rays or results when you need them) and makes information transfer easier between doctors. Protection of privacy can be an issue though.
Having all the information at a mouseclick is great, but by now everyone seems to carry their "extended memory" with them anyway on their PDA.

SYL :)

It's fine so long as ALL the information is there in a timely manner which means you end up turning highly paid doctors into highly paid (incompetent) typists. There is also a problem with too much information which will can manifest itself in longer consultations to reach the same conclusion which means fewer patients seen. The system is a dumb system, it won't check for drug interactions. Standard forms for data entry are great so long as all the patients are also standard, they're not unfortunately.

As things stand the system is behind schedule, over budget and there's no guarentee that it will work in a way that helps the medical profession help us. There are already some hospitals with supposed "paperless" systems, guess what? everyone still keeps paper files.

The NHS has a lot of aging IT systems which need replacing but no-one is doing so because of the super-system. There were a lot simpler and easier ways of upgrading the NHS's IT but they just weren't as sexy.

As far as security is concerned...... I give it a month before ther's a major security lapse (assuming the system actually gets finished).

Steve
 
<snip>

The system is a dumb system, it won't check for drug interactions.

<snip>

My understanding was the CfH programme is not implementing a monolithic all-singing all-dancing piece of IT, but a platform which can be extended as new technology and applications are developed.

Most of the negative headlines are about a single part of the system, the Summary Care Record, which is behind schedule for numerous reasons.
 
The fundamental underlying problem is their choice of platform.

Far too many Windows systems involved.

Much of the older infrastructure is based on VMS, and they should have continued all the new stuff on VMS, the best possible platform for something that absolutely needs to be resilient, disaster-tolerant and secure. The National Blood Service has recently rolled out their new country-wide system - based on VMS. I'll dig out the reference for this later.
 
All of the critical generator installations I've ever worked with had service contracts for diesel delivery. They don't run out.

Tell that to hospitals effected by Katrina. I'm not saying it's likely to happen, just that there are circumstances in which it can happen.
 
Tell that to hospitals effected by Katrina. I'm not saying it's likely to happen, just that there are circumstances in which it can happen.

True, but why point this out? If the electricity is truly gone, backups and all, I think the lack of an auxiliary IT system is likely to be the least of the worries at that hospital. Just like security, failure prevention is about making problems sufficiently unlikely, not impossible.
 
It's fine so long as ALL the information is there in a timely manner which means you end up turning highly paid doctors into highly paid (incompetent) typists. There is also a problem with too much information which will can manifest itself in longer consultations to reach the same conclusion which means fewer patients seen. The system is a dumb system, it won't check for drug interactions. Standard forms for data entry are great so long as all the patients are also standard, they're not unfortunately.

As things stand the system is behind schedule, over budget and there's no guarentee that it will work in a way that helps the medical profession help us. There are already some hospitals with supposed "paperless" systems, guess what? everyone still keeps paper files.

The NHS has a lot of aging IT systems which need replacing but no-one is doing so because of the super-system. There were a lot simpler and easier ways of upgrading the NHS's IT but they just weren't as sexy.

As far as security is concerned...... I give it a month before ther's a major security lapse (assuming the system actually gets finished).

Steve
Hmm...

I don't know what programs the NHS uses or what the super-system is, but ours do all the things I mentioned, and in general it works very well. It's not available everywhere yet, such as in small hospitals, but they are installing it. Some things still require a double administration,and some things are still easier on paper. I don't think anyone would like to go back to the days before we could file things on a computer.

Doctors still check their books and literature on occasion (as they have always done), a computerfile is just a different and quicker way to do that and an adaptation to the growing amount of information available to us. If you feel this makes them incompetent, then I would think you are wrong. Then again, it's still your choice to go to a doctor and choose the one you think is adequate. Please clarify your convictions to the doctor you are visiting, if you choose to visit one. We still desinfect our hands between patients too... Big diffeence between a PDA and a book: when the power goes down, you still have the information in your book, while your PDA is often wiped clean.
(resists the urge to use one).

SYL :)
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom