| 1. |
- Cijvat, Charlotte D., et al.
(författare)
-
Factors Influencing Development and Implementation of Patients' Access to Electronic Health Records : A Comparative Study of Sweden and the Netherlands
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Frontiers In Public Health. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 2296-2565. ; 9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) and associated national policies have increasingly been set up over the past two decades. Still little is known about the most effective strategy for developing and implementing PAEHRs. There are many stakeholders to take into account, and previous research focuses on the viewpoints of patients and healthcare professionals. Many known barriers and challenges could be solved by involving end-users in the development and implementation process. This study therefore compares barriers and facilitators for PAEHR development and implementation, both general and specific for patient involvement, that were present in Sweden and the Netherlands.Methods: There were a total of 14 semi-structured interviews with 16 key informants from both countries, on which content analysis was performed. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to guide both the construction of the interview guides and the content analysis.Outcomes: The main barriers present in both countries are resistance from healthcare professionals and technical barriers regarding electronic health record systems and vendors. Facilitators varied across the two contexts, where the national infrastructure and program management were highlighted as facilitators in Sweden and stakeholder engagement (including patients and healthcare professionals) was described as a facilitator in both contexts. Strong leadership was also described as a critical success factor, especially when faced with healthcare professional resistance.Conclusion: Most of the major barriers and facilitators from both countries are covered in existing literature. This study, however, identified factors that can be seen as more practical and that would not have arisen from interviews with patients or physicians. Recommendations for policymakers include keeping the mentioned barriers in mind from the start of development and paving the way for facilitators, mainly strict policies, learning from peer implementers, and patient involvement, when possible. Implementers should focus on strong decision-making and project management and on preparing the healthcare organization for the PAEHR.
|
|
| 2. |
- Dendooven, Amélie, et al.
(författare)
-
Coding practice in national and regional kidney biopsy registries
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMC Nephrology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2369. ; 22:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Kidney biopsy registries all over the world benefit research, teaching and health policy. Comparison, aggregation and exchange of data is however greatly dependent on how registration and coding of kidney biopsy diagnoses are performed. This paper gives an overview over kidney biopsy registries, explores how these registries code kidney disease and identifies needs for improvement of coding practice. Methods: A literature search was undertaken to identify biopsy registries for medical kidney diseases. These data were supplemented with information from personal contacts and from registry websites. A questionnaire was sent to all identified registries, investigating age of registries, scope, method of coding, possible mapping to international terminologies as well as self-reported problems and suggestions for improvement. Results: Sixteen regional or national kidney biopsy registries were identified, of which 11 were older than 10 years. Most registries were located either in Europe (10/16) or in Asia (4/16). Registries most often use a proprietary coding system (12/16). Only a few of these coding systems were mapped to SNOMED CT (1), older SNOMED versions (2) or ERA-EDTA PRD (3). Lack of maintenance and updates of the coding system was the most commonly reported problem. Conclusions: There were large gaps in the global coverage of kidney biopsy registries. Limited use of international coding systems among existing registries hampers interoperability and exchange of data. The study underlines that the use of a common and uniform coding system is necessary to fully realize the potential of kidney biopsy registries.
|
|
| 3. |
- Fernandez-Luque, Luis, et al.
(författare)
-
Evidence-Based Health Informatics as the Foundation for the COVID-19 Response : A Joint Call for Action
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Methods of Information in Medicine. - : Thieme Verlag. - 0026-1270 .- 2511-705X. ; 59:6, s. 183-192
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background As a major public health crisis, the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demonstrates the urgent need for safe, effective, and evidence-based implementations of digital health. The urgency stems from the frequent tendency to focus attention on seemingly high promising digital health interventions despite being poorly validated in times of crisis. Aim In this paper, we describe a joint call for action to use and leverage evidence-based health informatics as the foundation for the COVID-19 response and public health interventions. Tangible examples are provided for how the working groups and special interest groups of the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) are helping to build an evidence-based response to this crisis. Methods Leaders of working and special interest groups of the IMIA, a total of 26 groups, were contacted via e-mail to provide a summary of the scientific-based efforts taken to combat COVID-19 pandemic and participate in the discussion toward the creation of this manuscript. A total of 13 groups participated in this manuscript. Results Various efforts were exerted by members of IMIA including (1) developing evidence-based guidelines for the design and deployment of digital health solutions during COVID-19; (2) surveying clinical informaticians internationally about key digital solutions deployed to combat COVID-19 and the challenges faced when implementing and using them; and (3) offering necessary resources for clinicians about the use of digital tools in clinical practice, education, and research during COVID-19. Discussion Rigor and evidence need to be taken into consideration when designing, implementing, and using digital tools to combat COVID-19 to avoid delays and unforeseen negative consequences. It is paramount to employ a multidisciplinary approach for the development and implementation of digital health tools that have been rapidly deployed in response to the pandemic bearing in mind human factors, ethics, data privacy, and the diversity of context at the local, national, and international levels. The training and capacity building of front-line workers is crucial and must be linked to a clear strategy for evaluation of ongoing experiences.
|
|
