Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2005; 44(04): 528-536
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634004
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Current and Future Use of ICT for Patient Care and Management in German Acute Hospitals

A Comparison of the Nursing and the Hospital Managers’ Perspectives
U. Hübner
1   University of Applied Sciences Osnabrück, Department of Business Management and Social Sciences, Healthcare Informatics Unit, Osnabrück, Germany
2   Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
,
B. Sellemann
1   University of Applied Sciences Osnabrück, Department of Business Management and Social Sciences, Healthcare Informatics Unit, Osnabrück, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: This study aimed at gaining comprehensive information on the current status of patient care and management applications used in German acute hospitals. Since the degree of ICT coverage in hospitals depends on the attitude of the key decision makers we also wanted to capture their plans and priorities and herewith try to predict future use.

Methods: We therefore conducted a nation-wide survey including all acute hospitals in Germany in which two questionnaires were mailed to each hospital, one to the nursing managers, the other to the hospital managers.

Results: Six hundred hospitals participated in the survey which corresponds to an overall response rate of 27.6%. Accounting (84%) was found to be the most prevalent management module. Rostering was implemented in every second hospital. For clinical applications laboratory systems ranked first (69%). Ordering systems were used in nearly every second hospital. Nineteen percent of the hospitals reported employing an electronic patient record, 7% a nursing documentation system. Ranked by their priorities ordering systems hold the first position and care planning the last position. According to their plans, hospital managers, not nursing managers, intend to introduce nursing documentation. In contrast, nursing managers favor ordering and rostering for the near future.

Conclusions: There is still a preponderance of management-oriented systems in German hospitals, yet clinical applications, in particular those supporting communications, will gain ground. The future of documentation systems is unclear, unless they not only provide statistical data for the management but support the clinical process properly.

Keywords

Hospital information system - patient care - computerized patient record - hospital administration - data collection
 

  • References

  • 1 van Bemmel JH, Musen MA. Handbook of Medical Informatics. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Ball MJ, O’Desky RI, Douglas JV. Status and Progress of Hospital Information Systems. Int J Biomed Comput 1991; 29: 161-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ball MJ. Hospital information systems: perspectives on problems and prospects, 1979 and 2002. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2003; 69: 83-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kuhn KA, Guise DA. From Hospital Information Systems to Health Information System. Methods Inf Med 2001; 40: 275-87.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 9th-14th Annual HIMSS Leadership Survey 1998-2003 www.himss.org accessed on Febr 5, 2004
    PubMed
  • 6 Guise DA, Kuhn KA. Health information systems challenges: the Heidelberg conference and the future. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2003; 69: 105-14.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Staggers N, Thompson CB, Snyder-Halpern R. History and Trends in Clincial Information Systems in the United States. J Nurs Scholarsh 2001; 33 (01) 75-81.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Iakovidis I. Towards personal health record: current situation, obstacles and trends in implementation of electronic healthcare record in Europe. International Journal of Medical Informatics 1998; 52: 105-15.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Stead WW, Lorenzi NM. Health informatics: linking investment to value. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999; 6: 341-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 McDonald CJ. The Barriers to Electronic Medical Record Systems and How to Overcome Them. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997; 4: 213-21.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Haux R, Knaup P, Bauer AW, Herzog W, Reinhardt E, Überla K, van Eimeren W, Wahlster W. Information Processing in Healthcare at the Start of the third Millenium: Potential and Limitations. Methods Inf Med 2001; 40: 156-62.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 KIS_Umfrage_2002 of the HIS-working group of the German Society of Medical Informatics (GMDS) http://www.med.uni-heidelberg.de/mi/kis2002.html as accessed on Aug 28, 2003
    PubMed
  • 13 Hannah KJ, Ball MJ, Edwards M, Hübner U. Pflegeinformatik. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Gesundheitswesen – Grunddaten der Krankenhäuser und Vorsorge- oder Rehabilitationseinrichtungen 2001, Fachserie 12 / Reihe 6.1. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt 2003
    PubMed
  • 15 Staggers N, Bagley Thompson C. The Evolution of Definitions for Nursing Informatics: A Critical Analysis and Revised Definition. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002; 9: 255-61.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hübner U. Pflegeinformatik – Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven einer Spezialisierung innerhalb der Pflege. Pflege 2004; 17 (05) 339-49.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Helleso R, Ruland CM. Developing a module for nursing documentation integrated in the electronic patient record. J Clin Nurs 2001; 10 (06) 799-805.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lovis C, Arnet P, Despont-Gros C, Butel J, Geissbuhler A. Facilitating acceptance of a nomenclature driven nursing care patient record: environmental, social and behavioral considerations. Medinfo 2004; 2004 (CD) 1729
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Törnvall E, Wilhelmsson S, Wahren LK. Electronic nursing documentation in primary health care. Scand J Caring Sci 2004; 18 (03) 310-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ammenwerth E, Eichstädter R, Haux R, Pohl U, Rebel S, Ziegler S. A randomized evaluation of a computer-based nursing documentation system. Methods Inf Med 2001; 40: 61-8.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ammenwerth E, Mansmann U, Iller C, Eichstädter R. Factors Affecting and Affected by User Acceptance of Computer-based Nursing Documentation: Results of a Two-year Study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10 (01) 69-84.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bürkle T, Kuch R, Prokosch HU, Dudeck J. Stepwise evaluation of information systems in an university hospital. Methods Inf Med 1999; 38 (01) 9-15.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Larrabee JH, Boldreghini S, Elder-Sorrells K, Turner ZM, Wender RG, Hart JM, Lenzi PS. Evaluation of documentation before and after implementation of a nursing information system in an acute care hospital. Comput Nurs 2001; 19 (02) 56-65. quiz 66-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Haruki Y, Ogushi Y, Okada Y, Kimura M, Kumamoto I, Sekita Y. Status and perspective of hospital information systems in Japan. Methods Inf Med 1999; 38 (03) 200-6.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Vagelatos A, Sofotassios D, Papanikolaou C, Manolopoulos C. ICT penetration in public Greek hospitals. Stud Health Technol Inform 2002; 90: 702-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Schaubmayr C. Welche Bedeutung hat die Pflegeinformatik in Österreich? Presentation at the 3rd European Nursing Informatics Congress in Innsbruck, September 2004
  • 27 Hilderink HG, Epping P, Goossen WT. ICT in nursing in Dutch hospitals. Stud Health Technol Inform 2002; 93: 83-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lordieck W, Reichertz PL. Die EDV in den Krankenhäusern der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; 1983
    Google Scholar