Health information exchange in Finland: Usage of different access types and predictors of paper use

INTRODUCTION Timely, complete and accurate patient data is needed in care decisions along the continuum of care. To access patient data from other organizations, there are three types of regional health information exchange systems (RHIS) in use In Finland. Some regions use multiple RHISs while others do not have a RHIS available. The recently introduced National Patient Data Repository (Kanta) is increasingly used for health information exchange (HIE). OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess usage of paper, RHISs and Kanta by context in 2017; evolution of paper use over the years; and predictors of paper use in 2017 among Finnish physicians for HIE system development. METHODS Data from national electronic health record (EHR) usage and user experience surveys were taken from 2010 (prior to ePrescription system implementation), 2014 (prior to implementation of Kanta) and 2017 (Kanta was in full use in the public sector and in large private organizations). The web-based surveys were targeted to all physicians engaged in clinical work in Finland. RESULTS Kanta was the most frequently used means of HIE in 2017. Paper use had reduced significantly from 2010 to 2014. The trend continued in 2017. Still, up to half of the physicians reported using paper daily or weekly in 2017. There were great variations in paper use by healthcare sector, available RHIS type and EHR system used. In multivariable analysis (with all other variables constant), predictors of more frequent use of paper than electronic means for HIE were: private sector or hospital, access to Master Patient Index RHIS (type 1), multiple RHIS (type 4) or no RHIS (type 5), two particular EHR systems, older age, less experience, operative, psychiatric or diagnostic specialties, and male gender. CONCLUSIONS Usability of HIE systems including EHRs as access points to HIE need to be improved to facilitate usage of electronic HIE. Usage ensures more timely and complete patient data for safe, coordinated care. Specialty-specific needs and requirements call for more user participation in HIE design. Especially older professionals need training to better exploit HIS for HIE.

[1]  Bengt Sandblad,et al.  Evaluation of user adoption during three module deployments of region-wide electronic patient record systems , 2014, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[2]  A. Nation.  Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet , 2002 .

[3]  Mowafa Said Househ,et al.  A Literature Review on Health Information Exchange (HIE) , 2016, ICIMTH.

[4]  Elizabeth M. Borycki,et al.  Usability problems do not heal by themselves: National survey on physicians' experiences with EHRs in Finland , 2017, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[5]  Nir Menachemi,et al.  EHR and other IT adoption among physicians: results of a large-scale statewide analysis. , 2006, Journal of healthcare information management : JHIM.

[6]  Electronic tools for health information exchange: an evidence-based analysis. , 2013, Ontario health technology assessment series.

[7]  Kyooseob Ha,et al.  Physicians' perceptions and use of a health information exchange: a pilot program in South Korea. , 2012, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[8]  S E Ross,et al.  Interest in Health Information Exchange in Ambulatory Care: A Statewide Survey , 2010, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[9]  Rema Padman,et al.  Analyzing the Effect of Data Quality on the Accuracy of Clinical Decision Support Systems: A Computer Simulation Approach , 2006, AMIA.

[10]  Tinja Lääveri,et al.  National questionnaire study on clinical ICT systems proofs: Physicians suffer from poor usability , 2011, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[11]  Pouyan Esmaeilzadeh,et al.  Health Information Exchange (HIE): A literature review, assimilation pattern and a proposed classification for a new policy approach , 2016, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[12]  Johanna Kaipio,et al.  User experiences with different regional health information exchange systems in Finland , 2013, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[13]  L. Schilling,et al.  Systematic Review of Health Information Exchange in Primary Care Practices , 2010, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine.

[14]  Jarmo Reponen,et al.  E-health and e-welfare of Finland - Check point 2015 , 2015 .

[15]  Pi-Jung Hsieh,et al.  Physicians' acceptance of electronic medical records exchange: An extension of the decomposed TPB model with institutional trust and perceived risk , 2015, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[16]  Suvi Vainiomäki,et al.  Lääkärien arviot potilastietojärjestelmistä ovat parantuneet hieman , 2018 .

[17]  Jessica S. Ancker,et al.  Push and Pull: Physician Usage of and Satisfaction with Health Information Exchange , 2012, AMIA.

[18]  Sameer Malhotra,et al.  Physicians' potential use and preferences related to health information exchange , 2011, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

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

[20]  M. Kangas,et al.  Nordic eHealth Benchmarking , 2015 .

[21]  C. Kruse,et al.  Barriers Over Time to Full Implementation of Health Information Exchange in the United States , 2014, JMIR medical informatics.

[22]  Qingxia Chen,et al.  User perspectives on the usability of a regional health information exchange , 2011, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[23]  Jillian Oderkirk,et al.  Readiness of electronic health record systems to contribute to national health information and research , 2017 .

[24]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[25]  H. Hyppönen,et al.  Lääkärien arviot potilastietojärjestelmistä kriittisiä , 2010 .

[26]  Saurabh Rahurkar,et al.  Despite the spread of health information exchange, there is little evidence of its impact on cost, use, and quality of care. , 2015, Health affairs.

[27]  Rainu Kaushal,et al.  Consumer perceptions of electronic health information exchange. , 2012, American journal of preventive medicine.

[28]  Francis X Campion,et al.  High-level adoption of electronic health records. , 2011, The Journal of medical practice management : MPM.

[29]  Jeong-Whun Kim,et al.  Can a health information exchange save healthcare costs? Evidence from a pilot program in South Korea , 2015, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[30]  Paul G Shekelle,et al.  Usage and Effect of Health Information Exchange , 2014, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[31]  Francis Lau,et al.  Evaluation of a shared electronic health record. , 2014, Healthcare quarterly.

[32]  Jarmo Reponen,et al.  Current status of national eHealth and telemedicine development in Finland. , 2008, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[33]  James E Bailey,et al.  Emergency physicians' perspectives on their use of health information exchange. , 2014, Annals of emergency medicine.