1 / 13

HIT Implementation Results

HIT Implementation Results. David Anderson, Fermin Barrueto , Bruce Golden, Jon Mark Hirshon , Laura Pimentel, Ed Wasil. 6/4/2013. Generally No Large Impact. Most performance measures are flat Workup time Length of stay Some evidence of a slowdown Increased door to doctor times

hera
Download Presentation

HIT Implementation Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HIT Implementation Results David Anderson, FerminBarrueto, Bruce Golden, Jon Mark Hirshon, Laura Pimentel, Ed Wasil 6/4/2013

  2. Generally No Large Impact • Most performance measures are flat • Workup time • Length of stay • Some evidence of a slowdown • Increased door to doctor times • Slight increases in some LOS

  3. Workup Time Remains Flat

  4. Length of Stay Is Flat

  5. Increase in Door-to-Doc Time Door-to-Doc time increases after implementation, but slowly comes down afterwards

  6. Slight Increase in Length of Stay Length of stay also increases immediately after implementation, but comes back down quickly afterwards

  7. Changes Over Time? • We measure each doctor’s performance metrics over time • Performance changes vs. time? • Performance changes vs. use? • “Performance” for each doctor in each month is defined as the percent increase in workup time and length of stay over the average workup time and length of stay from Jan-July

  8. Decrease in Processing Time After Adoption Processing time (average of workup time and LOS) initially increases after adoption, but comes down quickly over time

  9. Decrease in Processing Time With Usage Processing times decrease the more patients a physician sees using the new system after adoption

  10. Time vs. Usage? • There is a significant increase in processing time the first two months after implementation (95% C.I. = 4% to 13%, p < .001) • Average processing time decreases by 1.7 percentage points each month after implementation, on average (p = .059) • performance increases each month after implementation • Average processing time decreases by .01 percentage point, on average, with every patient treated (p = .029)

  11. Age • Slowdowns after implementation increase with doctor experience (.0034% increase in processing time per year, p = .018) • However, there is a negative interaction effect (p = .001) between age and usage • Older doctors catch up to younger doctors with usage

  12. Gender • No real differences • Women have insignificantly faster treatment times(p = .354)

  13. Conclusion • HIT implementation leads to a short-term decrease in performance • Performance rebounds rather quickly, over time and with use • By December (5 months after implementation) there is no statistically significant increase in processing times (mean = 1.6% increase, p = .34)

More Related