4.3 Article

Health care information technology in rural America: Electronic medical record adoption status in meeting the national agenda

期刊

JOURNAL OF RURAL HEALTH
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 101-105

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2008.00145.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY [R01HS015009] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. AHRQ HHS [1R01 HS015009] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Continuing is a national political drive for investments in health care information technology (HIT) that will allow the transformation of health care for quality improvement and cost reduction. Despite several initiatives by the federal government to spur this development, HIT implementation has been limited, particularly in the rural market. The status of technology use in the transformation effort is reviewed by examining electronic medical records (EMRs), analyzing the existing rural environment, identifying barriers and factors affecting their development and implementation, and recommending needed steps to make this transformation occur, particularly in rural communities. A review of the literature for HIT in rural settings indicates that very little progress has been made in the adoption and use of HIT in rural America. Financial barriers and a large number of HIT vendors offering different solutions present significant risks to rural health care providers wanting to invest in HIT. Although evidence in the literature has demonstrated benefits of adopting HIT such as EMRs, important technical, policy, organizational, and financial barriers still exist that prevent the implementation of these systems in rural settings. To expedite the spread of HIT in rural America, federal and state governments along with private payers, who are important beneficiaries of HIT, must make difficult decisions as to who pays for the investment in this technology, along with driving standards, simplifying approaches for reductions in risk, and creating a workable operational plan.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据