Health information exchange: Using metrics to address quality of care and return on investment

Health Information Exchange (HIE) will play a key part in our nation’s effort to improve healthcare. The evidence of HIEs transformational role in healthcare delivery systems is quite limited. The lack of such evidence led us to explore what exists in the healthcare industry that may provide evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of HIEs. The objective of the study was to find out how many fully functional HIEs are using any measurements or metrics to gauge impact of HIE on quality improvement (QI) and on return on investment (ROI).^ A web-based survey was used to determine the number of operational HIEs using metrics for QI and ROI. Our study highlights the fact that only 50 percent of the HIEs who responded use or plan to use metrics. However, 95 percent of the respondents believed HIEs improve quality of care while only 56 percent believed HIE showed positive ROI. Although operational HIEs present numerous opportunities to demonstrate the business model for improving health care quality, evidence to document the impact of HIEs is lacking. ^

For-profit business safety interventions: A systematic, descriptive review of the literature

The purpose of this research was to determine if principles from organizational theory could be used as a framework to compare and contrast safety interventions developed by for-profit industry for the time period 1986–1996. A literature search of electronic databases and manual search of journals and local university libraries' book stacks was conducted for safety interventions developed by for-profit businesses. To maintain a constant regulatory environment, the business sectors of nuclear power, aviation and non-profits were excluded. Safety intervention evaluations were screened for scientific merit. Leavitt's model from organization theory was updated to include safety climate and renamed the Updated Leavitt's Model. In all, 8000 safety citations were retrieved, 525 met the inclusion criteria, 255 met the organizational safety intervention criteria, and 50 met the scientific merit criteria. Most came from non-public health journals. These 50 were categorized by the Updated Leavitt's Model according to where within the organizational structure the intervention took place. Evidence tables were constructed for descriptive comparison. The interventions clustered in the areas of social structure, safety climate, the interaction between social structure and participants, and the interaction between technology and participants. No interventions were found in the interactions between social structure and technology, goals and technology, or participants and goals. Despite the scientific merit criteria, many still had significant study design weaknesses. Five interventions tested for statistical significance but none of the interventions commented on the power of their study. Empiric studies based on safety climate theorems had the most rigorous designs. There was an attempt in these studies to address randomization amongst subjects to avoid bias. This work highlights the utility of using the Updated Leavitt's Model, a model from organizational theory, as a framework when comparing safety interventions. This work also highlights the need for better study design of future trials of safety interventions. ^

Federally regulated institutional review boards: The aspects of a "model" IRB---Is the current system in need of a tune up or complete overhaul?

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are the primary gatekeepers for the protection of ethical standards of federally regulated research on human subjects in this country. This paper focuses on what general, broad measures that may be instituted or enhanced to exemplify a "model IRB". This is done by examining the current regulatory standards of federally regulated IRBs, not private or commercial boards, and how many of those standards have been found either inadequate or not generally understood or followed. The analysis includes suggestions on how to bring about changes in order to make the IRB process more efficient, less subject to litigation, and create standardized educational protocols for members. The paper also considers how to include better oversight for multi-center research, increased centralization of IRBs, utilization of Data Safety Monitoring Boards when necessary, payment for research protocol review, voluntary accreditation, and the institution of evaluation/quality assurance programs. ^ This is a policy study utilizing secondary analysis of publicly available data. Therefore, the research for this paper focuses on scholarly medical/legal journals, web information from the Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Drug Administration, and the Office of the Inspector General, Accreditation Programs, law review articles, and current regulations applicable to the relevant portions of the paper. ^ Two issues are found to be consistently cited by the literature as major concerns. One is a need for basic, standardized educational requirements across all IRBs and its members, and secondly, much stricter and more informed management of continuing research. There is no federally regulated formal education system currently in place for IRB members, except for certain NIH-based trials. Also, IRBs are not keeping up with research once a study has begun, and although regulated to do so, it does not appear to be a great priority. This is the area most in danger of increased litigation. Other issues such as voluntary accreditation and outcomes evaluation are slowing gaining steam as the processes are becoming more available and more sought after, such as JCAHO accrediting of hospitals. ^ Adopting the principles discussed in this paper should promote better use of a local IRBs time, money, and expertise for protecting the vulnerable population in their care. Without further improvements to the system, there is concern that private and commercial IRBs will attempt to create a monopoly on much of the clinical research in the future as they are not as heavily regulated and can therefore offer companies quicker and more convenient reviews. IRBs need to consider the advantages of charging for their unique and important services as a cost of doing business. More importantly, there must be a minimum standard of education for all IRB members in the area of the ethical standards of human research and a greater emphasis placed on the follow-up of ongoing research as this is the most critical time for study participants and may soon lead to the largest area for litigation. Additionally, there should be a centralized IRB for multi-site trials or a study website with important information affecting the trial in real time. There needs to be development of standards and metrics to assess the performance of the IRBs for quality assurance and outcome evaluations. The boards should not be content to run the business of human subjects' research without determining how well that function is actually being carried out. It is important that federally regulated IRBs provide excellence in human research and promote those values most important to the public at large.^