Quality control system is one of the hospital information systems. The adoption of quality control system increases the work efficiency; however, to some extent, it also increases the workload for physicians.
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study is to investigate the impacts of the quality control system on quality of care (e.g., process and outcome performance).
METHODS:
Our study collected physicians’ behavior information from a large urban hospital in China. We constructed the fixed-effect model to examine the relationship between the quality control system adoption and quality of care.
RESULTS:
Using the quality control system has a significant ( 0.001) and negative effect on patients’ stay length in the hospital (process performance). Furthermore, using the quality control system has a significant ( 0.001) and positive effect on the trends of cure rate in the hospital (outcome performance). The coefficient of the dependent variable from the patients’ stay length (process performance) is lower than the trends of cure rate (outcome performance).
CONCLUSIONS:
The controlling system can improve medical quality even though it limits physician behavior to some extent. The controlling system improves both the process performance and outcome performance, and it brings more benefits to outcome performance rather than process performance which means the reflection of the new technology may have more evident on outcome variables.
DaiJWangXAyalaFJ. Medical informatics and the “three long, one short” problem of large urban hospitals in China. JAMA. 2016; 316(3): 269-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.5487.
2.
CarneiroDPimentaAGonçalvesSNevesJNovaisP. Monitoring and improving performance in human-computer interaction. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience. 2016; 28(4): 1291-309. doi: 10.1002/cpe.3635.
3.
HibbelnMJenkinsJLSchneiderCValacichJSWeinmannM. How is your user feeling? Inferring emotion through human-computer interaction devices. MIS Quarterly. 2017; 41(1): 1.
4.
CarvalhoRMde Castro AndradeRMde OliveiraKMde Sousa SantosIBezerraCIM. Quality characteristics and measures for human-computer interaction evaluation in ubiquitous systems. Software Quality Journal. 2016: 1-53. doi: 10.1007/s11219-016-9320-z.
5.
CairnsAWBondRRFinlayDDBreenCGuldenringDGaffneyR, et al. A computer-human interaction model to improve the diagnostic accuracy and clinical decision-making during 12-lead electrocardiogram interpretation. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2016 12; 64: 93-107. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2016.09.016.
6.
AncaraniADi MauroCGittoSMancusoPAyachA. Technology acquisition and efficiency in Dubai hospitals. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2016 12; 113, Part B: 475-85. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.010.
7.
ZakariaNMohd YusofSA. Understanding technology and people issues in hospital information system (HIS) adoption: case study of a tertiary hospital in malaysia. Journal of Infection and Public Health. 2016 11; 9(6): 774-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2016.08.017.
8.
DranoveDGarthwaiteCLiBOdyC. Investment subsidies and the adoption of electronic medical records in hospitals. Journal of Health Economics. 2015; 44(9): 309-19.
9.
XiaoNSharmanRSinghRSinghGDanzoARaoHR. “Meaningful Use” of ambulatory EMR: does it improve the quality and efficiency of health care? Health Policy & Technology. 2012; 1(1): 28-34.
10.
AlmazánCBlas-MachadoUKocanKMYoshiokaJHBlouinEFMangoldAJ, et al. The impact of health information technology bundles on performance: an econometric study. Journal of Operations Management. 2016; 41(1): 25-41.
11.
LeilaA. The effects of health information technology on the costs and quality of medical care. Journal of Health Economics. 2014; 34(1): 19-30.
12.
EmmertMTaheri-ZadehFKolbBSanderU. Public reporting of hospital quality shows inconsistent ranking results. Health Policy. 2017 1; 121(1): 17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.11.004.
13.
WilliamsCAsiYRaffenaudABagwellMZeiniI. The effect of information technology on hospital performance. Health Care Management Science. 2016 2016; 19(4): 338-46. doi: 10.1007/s10729-015-9329-z.
14.
GrahamB. Defining and measuring patient satisfaction. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2016 9; 41(9): 929-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.07.109.
15.
BatesDWPappiusEKupermanGJSittigDBurstinHFairchildD, et al. Using information systems to measure and improve quality. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 1999 2/1; 53(2-3): 115-24. doi: 10.1016/S1386-5056(98)00152-X.
16.
van WijkMAvan der LeiJMosseveldMBohnenAMvan BemmelJH. Assessment of decision support for blood test ordering in primary care. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2001 2001/2; 134(4): 274-81. PMID: 11182837. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-4-200102200-00010.
17.
DevarajSKohliR. Information technology payoff in the health-care industry: a longitudinal study. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2000; 16(4): 41-68.
18.
DevarajSRajivK. Performance impacts of information technology: is actual usage the missing link? Management Science. 2003; 49(3): 273-89.
19.
AmarasinghamRPlantingaLDiener-WestMGaskinDJPoweNR. Clinical information technologies and inpatient outcomes: a multiple hospital study. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2009 Jan 26; 169(2): 108-14. PMID: 19171805. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.520.
20.
DexterPRPerkinsSMMaharryKSJonesKMcDonaldCJ. Inpatient computer-based standing orders vs. physician reminders to increase influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2004; 292(19): 2366-71. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.19.2366.
21.
KucherNKooSQuirozRCooperJMPaternoMDSoukonnikovB, et al. Electronic alerts to prevent venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2005 Mar 10; 352(10): 969-77. PMID: 15758007. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa041533.
22.
ParenteSTMcCulloughJS. Health information technology and patient safety: evidence from panel data. Health Affairs (Project Hope). 2009 Mar-Apr; 28(2): 357-60. PMID: 19275990. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.357.
23.
AronRDuttaSJanakiramanRPathakPA. The impact of automation of systems on medical errors: evidence from field research. Information Systems Research. 2011; 22(3): 429-46.
24.
PucherPAggarwalRDarziAW. Surgical ward round quality and impact on variable patient outcomes. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2013 9; 217(3, Supplement): S103. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.235.
25.
PucherPHAggarwalRSinghPSrisatkunamTTwaijADarziA. Ward simulation to improve surgical ward round performance: a randomized controlled trial of a simulation-based curriculum. Ann Surg. 2014 2014/08; 260(2): 236-43. PMID: 24646529. doi: 10.1097/sla.0000000000000557.
26.
MemonKNShaikhNZSoomroRAShaikhSRKhwajaAM. Non-compliance to doctors’ advice among patients suffering from various diseases: patients’ perspectives: a neglected issue. Journal of Medicine (Bangladesh). 2017; 18(1): 10-4. doi: 10.3329/jom.v18i1.31170.
27.
AngstCDevarajSD’ArcyJ. Dual role of it-assisted communication in patient care: a validated structure-process-outcome framework. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2012; 29(2): 257-92.
28.
BertrandMDufloEMullainathanS. How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2004; 119(1): 249-75.
29.
MillerARTuckerC. Privacy protection and technology diffusion: the case of electronic medical records. Management Science. 2009; 55(7): 1077-93.
30.
AtrejaAStevenMGDanielAPRussellNOPatrickJBCommitteeHICPA. Opportunities and challenges in utilizing electronic health records for infection surveillance, prevention, and control. American Journal of Infection Control. 2008; 36(3): S37-S46.
