A comparison of how four countries use health IT to support care for people with chronic conditions.

Countries around the globe are investing in health information and communications technologies (ICTs) as critical tools for improving care for chronically ill patients. We profiled four high-income nations with varied health ICT strategies--Australia, Canada, Denmark, and the United States--to describe their use of ICTs to improve chronic care. Our goal was to identify common challenges and opportunities for cross-national learning. We found four key themes. First, although all four countries have a national strategy for health ICT adoption, strategies are implemented and adapted to chronic care needs regionally, which creates the challenge of spreading successful efforts across regions. Second, each country struggles with how to ensure that clinical information follows patients seamlessly between care settings. Third, although each nation is pursuing telehealth solutions as a component of chronic care, the telehealth initiatives are usually stand-alone efforts that are not well integrated into other ICT solutions, such as electronic health records. Finally, countries have made progress in improving patients' access to their clinical data but have not fully succeeded in engaging patients to apply the data to improve care. These common themes suggest that although the four nations have different health care systems and ICT strategies, all of them face a similar set of challenges, creating an opportunity for cross-national learning.

[1]  Patrick Kierkegaard,et al.  eHealth in Denmark: A Case Study , 2013, Journal of Medical Systems.

[2]  Claudia H. Williams,et al.  From the Office of the National Coordinator: the strategy for advancing the exchange of health information. , 2012, Health affairs.

[3]  Spencer S. Jones,et al.  Health Information Technology: An Updated Systematic Review With a Focus on Meaningful Use , 2014, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  Brian T. Austin,et al.  Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. , 2001, Health affairs.

[5]  M. Coye,et al.  Remote patient management: technology-enabled innovation and evolving business models for chronic disease care. , 2009, Health affairs.

[6]  D. Blumenthal,et al.  The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. , 2011, Health affairs.

[7]  Cathy Schoen,et al.  A survey of primary care physicians in eleven countries, 2009: perspectives on care, costs, and experiences. , 2009, Health affairs.

[8]  Julia Adler-Milstein,et al.  Telehealth among US hospitals: several factors, including state reimbursement and licensure policies, influence adoption. , 2014, Health affairs.

[9]  D. Blumenthal,et al.  The "meaningful use" regulation for electronic health records. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  C. Schoen,et al.  A survey of primary care doctors in ten countries shows progress in use of health information technology, less in other areas. , 2012, Health affairs.

[11]  Julia Adler-Milstein,et al.  Benchmarking health IT among OECD countries: better data for better policy , 2014, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[12]  Patrick Kierkegaard,et al.  Electronic health record: Wiring Europe's healthcare , 2011, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[13]  R. Cebul,et al.  Electronic health records and quality of diabetes care. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  D. McInnes,et al.  General practitioners’ use of computers for prescribing and electronic health records: results from a national survey , 2006, The Medical journal of Australia.