Difference between revisions of "HIT Outsourcing in Rural Hospitals"

From Clinfowiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(The Problem)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
Rural hospitals struggle to adopt health IT (HIT) innovations at the rate of larger hospitals for a variety of reasons.  These reasons have been explored in several previous articles, however solutions have been less prevalent in the literature.  A recent (2012) survey of rural hospitals begins to outline a framework for solving some of the barriers that rural hospitals face.
 
Rural hospitals struggle to adopt health IT (HIT) innovations at the rate of larger hospitals for a variety of reasons.  These reasons have been explored in several previous articles, however solutions have been less prevalent in the literature.  A recent (2012) survey of rural hospitals begins to outline a framework for solving some of the barriers that rural hospitals face.
  
== The Problem ==
+
== Background ==
  
 
Rural hospitals often struggle to stay financially viable while attempting to meet the standard of care set forth by their much larger counterparts.  HIT is often seen as an elegant solution to both of these problems, as it is viewed as a money-saving endeavor while keeping healthcare quality at a maximum.  However, rural hospitals struggle to implement HIT due to lack of resources, both financial and personnel.  A study published by Johnson, et. al details a survey regarding attitudes on HIT outsourcing at these rural hospitals as a solution to these barriers of HIT implementation.  This survey is based off a paper by Reddy, et. al proposing a model of hospital-to-hospital partnerships where rural hospitals partner with a larger hospital for HIT resources.
 
Rural hospitals often struggle to stay financially viable while attempting to meet the standard of care set forth by their much larger counterparts.  HIT is often seen as an elegant solution to both of these problems, as it is viewed as a money-saving endeavor while keeping healthcare quality at a maximum.  However, rural hospitals struggle to implement HIT due to lack of resources, both financial and personnel.  A study published by Johnson, et. al details a survey regarding attitudes on HIT outsourcing at these rural hospitals as a solution to these barriers of HIT implementation.  This survey is based off a paper by Reddy, et. al proposing a model of hospital-to-hospital partnerships where rural hospitals partner with a larger hospital for HIT resources.
 +
 +
== Reddy, et. al ==
 +
 +
Study published in 2008.  Studied 3 rural hospitals, from 9-83 beds, which outsourced their HIT needs through a larger regional hospital with 411 beds.  The regional hospital provided hardware, software, customer support and housed the data center. 
 +
 +
*Benefits of the arrangement:
 +
**Financial Savings
 +
**Shared IT Staff
 +
 +
*Challenges:
 +
**Customer Service
 +
**Interdependence
 +
 +
The rural hospitals listed the benefits of significant financial savings and having access to hardware and software that would otherwise be generally out of their price range as well as access to IT staff that would also be unsustainable in their smaller environments.  Contrarily, the rural hospitals felt that challenges with this model was the customer service model, where the rural hospitals were both customers and partners, and did not always get the service they felt was appropriate to their role.  Also, with housing the data and hardware at the regional hospitals, the rural hospitals became dependent on the regional hospital in ways that were both expected and unexpected.  Over time, this interdependence grows as the systems become more enmeshed and would be more and more difficult to separate.

Revision as of 20:09, 12 April 2016

Introduction

Rural hospitals struggle to adopt health IT (HIT) innovations at the rate of larger hospitals for a variety of reasons. These reasons have been explored in several previous articles, however solutions have been less prevalent in the literature. A recent (2012) survey of rural hospitals begins to outline a framework for solving some of the barriers that rural hospitals face.

Background

Rural hospitals often struggle to stay financially viable while attempting to meet the standard of care set forth by their much larger counterparts. HIT is often seen as an elegant solution to both of these problems, as it is viewed as a money-saving endeavor while keeping healthcare quality at a maximum. However, rural hospitals struggle to implement HIT due to lack of resources, both financial and personnel. A study published by Johnson, et. al details a survey regarding attitudes on HIT outsourcing at these rural hospitals as a solution to these barriers of HIT implementation. This survey is based off a paper by Reddy, et. al proposing a model of hospital-to-hospital partnerships where rural hospitals partner with a larger hospital for HIT resources.

Reddy, et. al

Study published in 2008. Studied 3 rural hospitals, from 9-83 beds, which outsourced their HIT needs through a larger regional hospital with 411 beds. The regional hospital provided hardware, software, customer support and housed the data center.

  • Benefits of the arrangement:
    • Financial Savings
    • Shared IT Staff
  • Challenges:
    • Customer Service
    • Interdependence

The rural hospitals listed the benefits of significant financial savings and having access to hardware and software that would otherwise be generally out of their price range as well as access to IT staff that would also be unsustainable in their smaller environments. Contrarily, the rural hospitals felt that challenges with this model was the customer service model, where the rural hospitals were both customers and partners, and did not always get the service they felt was appropriate to their role. Also, with housing the data and hardware at the regional hospitals, the rural hospitals became dependent on the regional hospital in ways that were both expected and unexpected. Over time, this interdependence grows as the systems become more enmeshed and would be more and more difficult to separate.