Methods Inf Med 2015; 54(05): 424-433
DOI: 10.3414/ME14-02-0025
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

Developing a Workflow Composite Score to Measure Clinical Information Logistics[*]

A Top-down Approach
J. D. Liebe
1   Health Informatics Research Group, Hochschule Osnabrück, Department of Business Management and Social Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany
,
U. Hübner
1   Health Informatics Research Group, Hochschule Osnabrück, Department of Business Management and Social Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany
,
M. C. Straede
1   Health Informatics Research Group, Hochschule Osnabrück, Department of Business Management and Social Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany
,
J. Thye
1   Health Informatics Research Group, Hochschule Osnabrück, Department of Business Management and Social Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received: 16 December 2014

accepted: 03 September 2015

Publication Date:
22 January 2018 (online)

Summary

Background: Availability and usage of individual IT applications have been studied intensively in the past years. Recently, IT support of clinical processes is attaining in-creasing attention. The underlying construct that describes the IT support of clinical work-flows is clinical information logistics. This construct needs to be better understood, operationalised and measured.

Objectives: It is therefore the aim of this study to propose and develop a workflow composite score (WCS) for measuring clinical information logistics and to examine its quality based on reliability and validity analyses.

Methods: We largely followed the procedural model of MacKenzie and colleagues (2011) for defining and conceptualising the construct domain, for developing the measurement instrument, assessing the content validity, pre-testing the instrument, specifying the model, capturing the data and computing the WCS and testing the reliability and validity.

Results: Clinical information logistics was decomposed into the descriptors data and information, function, integration and distribution, which embraced the framework validated by an analysis of the international literature. This framework was refined selecting representative clinical processes. We chose ward rounds, pre- and post-surgery processes and discharge as sample processes that served as concrete instances for the measurements. They are sufficiently complex, represent core clinical processes and involve different professions, departments and settings. The score was computed on the basis of data from 183 hospitals of different size, ownership, location and teaching status. Testing the reliability and validity yielded encouraging results: the reliability was high with rsplit-half = 0.89, the WCS discriminated between groups; the WCS correlated significantly and moderately with two EHR models and the WCS received good evaluation results by a sample of chief information officers (n = 67). These findings suggest the further utilisation of the WCS.

Conclusion: As the WCS does not assume ideal workflows as a gold standard but measures IT support of clinical workflows according to validated descriptors a high portability of the WCS to other hospitals in other countries is very likely. The WCS will contribute to a better understanding of the construct clinical information logistics.

* Supplementary online material published on our website www.methods-online.com


 
  • References

  • 1 Donabedian A. Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care.. Milbank Quarterly 2005; 83 (04) 691-629.
  • 2 Otieno GO, Hinako T, Motohiro A, Daisuke K, Keiko N. Measuring effectiveness of electronic medical records systems: towards building a composite index for benchmarking hospitals.. Int J Med Inform 2008; 77 (010) 657-669.
  • 3 Ammenwerth E, Ehlers F, Hirsch B, Gratl G, Machan C. HIS-monitor: quality of information processing in hospitals.. Stud Health Technol Inform 2006; 124: 335-340.
  • 4 Lenz R, Reichert M. IT support for healthcare processes - premises, challenges, perspectives.. Data and Knowledge Engineering 2007; 61: 39-58.
  • 5 Chiao CM, Künzle V, Reichert M. Object-aware process support in healthcare information systems: requirements, conceptual framework and examples.. Int J Adv Life Sci 2013; 5 (1 & 2) 11-26.
  • 6 Lenz R, Peleg M, Reichert M. Healthcare Process Support: Achievements, Challenges, Current Research. 2012.. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Organizations. 2012; 2: 4.
  • 7 Pryss R, Mundbrod N, Langer D, Reichert M. Supporting medical ward rounds through mobile task and process management.. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 2014 - The MEDo Approach. In: 1st Int’l Workshop on Adaptive Case Management (ACM’12), BPM’12 Workshops. LNBIP 132 Springer; 2012: 43-54.
  • 8 Lange HJ, Michaelis J, Überla K. 15 Jahre Medizinische Statistik und Dokumentation: Aspekte eines Fachgebietes.. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 1978
  • 9 Winter A, Haux R, Ammenwerth E, Brigl B, Hellrung N, Jahn F. Health Information Systems - Architectures and Strategies.. London: Springer; 2011
  • 10 Amarasingham R, Pronovost PJ, Diener-West M, Goeschel C, Dorman T, Thiemann DR, Powe NR. Measuring clinical information technology in the ICU setting: application in a quality improvement collaborative.. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14 (03) 288-294.
  • 11 Paré G, Sicotte C. Information technology sophistication in health care: an instrument validation study among Canadian hospitals.. Int J Med Inform 2001; 63: 205-223.
  • 12 Jaana M, Tamim H, Paré G, Teitelbaum M. Key IT Management Issues in Canadian Hospitals: A Delphi Study.. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80: 828-840.
  • 13 OECD. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators Methodology and Users Guide http://www.oecd.org/social/soc/handbookoncon structingcompositeindicatorsmethodologyand userguide.htm Last access Dec 5 2014
  • 14 Thye J, Straede MC, Liebe JD, Hübner U. IT-Benchmarking of Clinical Workflows: Concept, Implementation, and Evaluation.. Stud Health Technol Inform 2014; 198: 116-124.
  • 15 Liebe JD, Hübner U. Developing and Trialling an Independent, Scalable and Repeatable IT-benchmarking Procedure for Healthcare Organisations.. Methods Inf Med 2013; 52 (04) 360-369.
  • 16 European Hospital Survey: Benchmarking Deployment of e-Health Services. European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Prospective technological Studies (IPTS) (2012-2013) Methodological Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2013
  • 17 Agarwal R, DesRoches C, Jha A. The Digital Transformation of Healthcare: Current Status and the Road Ahead.. Inform Syst Res 2011; 21: 796-809.
  • 18 MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM, Podsakoff NP. Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques.. MIS Quarterly 2011; 35 (02) 293-334.
  • 19 Goh J, Gao G, Argawal R. Evolving Work Routines: Adaptive Routinization of Information Technology in Healthcare.. Inform Syst Res 2011; 22: 565-585.
  • 20 Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Donelan K, Rao SR, Ferris TG, Shields A, Rosenbaum S, Blumenthal D. Use of electronic health records in U.S. hospitals.. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (016) 1628-1638.
  • 21 HIMSS Analytics Europe o.J. EMR Adop- tion Model http://www.himssanalytics.eu/emram/ DetailsonEMRAM Last access Dec 5 2014
  • 22 Hübner U and colleagues. IT-Report Gesundheitswesen http://www.it-report-healthcare.info Last access Dec 5 2014
  • 23 Lienert GA, und Raatz U.. Testaufbau und Testanalyse. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union; 1998
  • 24 Moosbrugger H, Kelava A. Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion.. Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag; 2007
  • 25 Hikmet N, Bhattacherjee A, Menachemi N, Kayhan VO, Brooks RG. The role of organizational factors in the adoption of healthcare information technology in Florida hospitals.. Health CareManage Sci 2008; 11: 1-9.
  • 26 Fonkych K, Taylor R. The state and pattern of health information technology adoption.. Santa Monica (CA): RAND Corporation; 2005
  • 27 Parente ST, Van Horn RL. Valuing hospital investment in information technology: does governance make a difference?. Health Care Financ Rev 2006; 28 (02) 31-43.
  • 28 The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), Meaningful Use Stage 2 Criteria http://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/meaningfulusetablesseries2_110112. pdf Last access Dec 5 2014
  • 29 Ammenwerth E, Rauchegger F, Ehlers F, Hirsch B, Schaubmayr C. Effect of a nursing information system on the quality of information processing in nursing: An evaluation study using the HIS-monitor instrument.. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80 (01) 25-38.
  • 30 McCullough JM, Zimmerman FJ, Bell DS, Rodriguez HP. Electronic health information exchange in underserved settings: examining initiatives in small physician practices & community health centers.. BMC Health Serv Res 2014: 415.
  • 31 Diana ML, Harle CA, Huerta TR, Ford EW, Menachemi N. Hospital characteristics associated with achievement of meaningful use.. J Healthc Manag 2014; 59 (04) 272-286.
  • 32 Adler-Milstein J, DesRoches CM, Furukawa MF, Worzala C, Charles D, Kralovec P, Stalley S, Jha AK. More than half of US hospitals have at least a basic EHR, but stage 2 criteria remain challenging for most.. Health Aff 2014; 33 (09) 1664-1671.