Assessing the level of healthcare information technology adoption in the United States: a snapshot
Open accessAbstract
Background: Comprehensive knowledge about the level of healthcare information technology (HIT) adoption in the United States remains limited. We therefore performed a baseline assessment to address this knowledge gap. Methods: We segmented HIT into eight major stakeholder groups and identified major functionalities that should ideally exist for each, focusing on applications most likely to improve patient safety, quality of care and organizational efficiency. We then conducted a multi-site qualitative study in Boston and Denver by interviewing key informants from each stakeholder group. Interview transcripts were analyzed to assess the level of adoption and to document the major barriers to further adoption. Findings for Boston and Denver were then presented to an expert panel, which was then asked to estimate the national level of adoption using the modified Delphi approach. We measured adoption level in Boston and Denver was graded on Rogers' technology adoption curve by co-investigators. National estimates from our expert panel were expressed as percentages. Results: Adoption of functionalities with financial benefits far exceeds adoption of those with safety and quality benefits. Despite growing interest to adopt HIT to improve safety and quality, adoption remains limited, especially in the area of ambulatory electronic health records and physician-patient communication. Organizations, particularly physicians' practices, face enormous financial challenges in adopting HIT, and concerns remain about its impact on productivity. Conclusion: Adoption of HIT is limited and will likely remain slow unless significant financial resources are made available. Policy changes, such as financial incentivesto clinicians to use HIT or pay-for-performance reimbursement, may help health care providers defray upfront investment costs and initial productivity loss.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Difficulties in eHealth implementation are international phenomena, with similar problems being widely reported.
“Difficulties in eHealth implementation are international phenomena, with similar problems being widely reported [102-105].”
From Web-Based Interventions for Behavior Change and Self-Management: Potential, Pitfalls, and Progress (2012) · cites this paper as [104]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 318
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Pizziferri L KAFLMVLAGSWSJBDW Does Using an Electronic Health Record Require More Time for Primary Care Physicians? Medinfo 2004 Conference, San Francisco, CA, 2004 Sept 2004
- Authors
- Poon, E. G., Jha, A. K., Christino, M., Honour, M. M., Fernandopulle, R., Middleton, B., Newhouse, J., Leape, L., Bates, D. W., Blumenthal, D., & Kaushal, R.
- Affiliations
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Poon, Eric G
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
- Published
- 2006-01-05
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-1
- ISSN
- 1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC1343543
- OpenAlex
- W1853981183
- Cited by
- 318
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 51.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- 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, outpatient care, physician-patient communication, patient safety, quality of care, organizational efficiency, barriers to adoption, financial incentives, performance-based pay, technology adoption curve, stakeholders, physician practice, productivity loss
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Boston, Colorado, Delphi Technique, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Information Systems, Interviews as Topic, Quality Assurance, Health Care, United States, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Efficiency, Organizational, Safety Management, Systems Integration, Consensus
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