The quality case for information technology in healthcare

BACKGROUND: As described in the Institute of Medicine's Crossing the Quality Chasm report, the quality of health care in the U.S. today leaves much to be desired. DISCUSSION: One major opportunity for improving quality relates to increasing the use of information technology, or IT. Health care organizations currently invest less in IT than in any other information-intensive industry, and not surprisingly current systems are relatively primitive, compared with industries such as banking or aviation. Nonetheless, a number of organizations have demonstrated that quality can be substantially improved in a variety of ways if IT use is increased in ways that improve care. Specifically, computerization of processes that are error-prone and computerized decision support may substantially improve both efficiency and quality, as well as dramatically facilitate quality measurement. This report discusses the current levels of IT and quality in health care, how quality improvement and management are currently done, the evidence that more IT might be helpful, a vision of the future, and the barriers to getting there. SUMMARY: This report suggests that there are five key policy domains that need to be addressed: standards, incentives, security and confidentiality, professional involvement, and research, with financial incentives representing the single most important lever

Receipt, uptake, and satisfaction with tailored DVD and patient navigation interventions to promote cancer screening among rural women

Process evaluation is essential to understanding and interpreting the results of randomized trials testing the effects of behavioral interventions. A process evaluation was conducted as part of a comparative effectiveness trial testing a mailed, tailored interactive digital video disc (DVD) with and without telephone-based patient navigation (PN) to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening among rural women who were not up-to-date (UTD) for at least one screening test. Data on receipt, uptake, and satisfaction with the interventions were collected via telephone interviews from 542 participants who received the tailored interactive DVD (n = 266) or the DVD plus telephone-based PN (n = 276). All participants reported receiving the DVD and 93.0% viewed it. The most viewed sections of the DVD were about colorectal, followed by breast, then cervical cancer screening. Most participants agreed the DVD was easy to understand, helpful, provided trustworthy information, and gave information needed to make a decision about screening. Most women in the DVD+PN group, 98.2% (n = 268), reported talking with the navigator. The most frequently discussed cancer screenings were colorectal (86.8%) and breast (71.3%); 57.5% discussed cervical cancer screening. The average combined length of PN encounters was 22.2 minutes with 21.7 additional minutes spent on coordinating activities. Barriers were similar across screening tests with the common ones related to the provider/health care system, lack of knowledge, forgetfulness/too much bother, and personal issues. This evaluation provided information about the implementation and delivery of behavioral interventions as well as challenges encountered that may impact trial results