Cited by 420Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

The use of health information technology in seven nations

Jha, Ashish K., Doolan, David, Grandt, Daniel, Scott, Tim, Bates, David W.·2008·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Objective To assess the state of health information technology (HIT) adoption and use in seven industrialized nations.Design We used a combination of literature review, as well as interviews with experts in individual nations, to determine use of key information technologies.Main outcome measures We examined rates of electronic health record (EHR) use in ambulatory care and hospital settings, along with current activities in health information exchange (HIE) in seven countries: the United States (U.S.), Canada, United Kingdom (UK), Germany, Netherlands, Australia, and New Zealand (NZ).Results Four nations (the UK, Netherlands, Australia, and NZ) had nearly universal use of EHRs among general practitioners (each >90%) and Germany was far along (40-80%). The U.S. and Canada had a minority of ambulatory care physicians who used EHRs consistently (10-30%). While there are no high quality data for the hospital setting from any of the nations we examined, evidence suggests that only a small fraction of hospitals (<10%) in any single country had the key components of an EHR. HIE efforts were a high priority in all seven nations but the early efforts have had varying degrees of active clinical data exchange.Conclusion We examined HIT adoption in seven industrialized nations and found that many have achieved high levels of ambulatory EHR adoption but lagged with respect to inpatient EHR and HIE. These data suggest that increased efforts will be needed if interoperable EHRs are soon to become ubiquitous in these seven nations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.06.007

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jha, A. K., Doolan, D., Grandt, D., Scott, T., & Bates, D. W.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Hunter New England Local Health District (AU)
  • Klinikum Saarbrücken (DE)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Jha, Ashish K.
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-12
Volume
77
Issue
12
Pages
848-854
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1976043039
Cited by
420
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 35
FWCI
55.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Commonwealth Fund
  • Hort Innovation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
health information technology adoption, electronic health records, health information exchange, outpatient care, interoperability, general practitioners, cross-national comparison, clinical data exchange
MeSH terms
Europe, Hospital Administration, Medical Informatics, Australasia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review