↓ Skip to main content

Vendor of choice and the effectiveness of policies to promote health information exchange

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Vendor of choice and the effectiveness of policies to promote health information exchange
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3230-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anabel F. Castillo, Marvin Sirbu, Alexander L. Davis

Abstract

As more hospitals adopt Electronic Health Records (EHR), focus has shifted to how these records can be used to improve patient care. One barrier to this improvement is limited information exchange between providers. In this work we examine the role of EHR vendors, hypothesizing that vendors strategically control the exchange of clinical care summaries. Their strategy may involve the creation of networks that easily exchange information between providers with the same vendor but frustrate exchange between providers with different vendors, even as both Federal and State policies attempt to incentivize exchange through a common format. Using data from the 2013 American Hospital Association's Information Technology Supplement, we examine the relationship between a hospital's decision to share clinical care summaries outside of their network and EHR vendor market share, measured by the percentage of hospitals that have the same vendor in a Hospital Referral Region. Our findings show that the likelihood of a hospital exchanging clinical summaries with hospitals outside its health system increases as the percentage of hospitals with the same EHR vendor in the region increases. The estimated odds of a hospital sharing clinical care summaries outside their system is 5.4 (95% CI, 3.29-8.80) times greater if all hospitals in the Hospital Referral Region use the same EHR Vendor than the corresponding odds for a hospital in an area with no hospitals using the same EHR Vendor. When reviewing the relationship of vendor market concentration at the state level we find a positive significant relationship with the percentage of hospitals that share clinical care summaries within a state. We find no significant impact from state policies designed to incentivize information exchange through the State Health Information Exchange Cooperative Program. There are benefits to exchanging using proprietary methods that are strengthened when the vendors are more concentrated. In order to avoid closed networks that foreclose some hospitals, it is important that future regulation attempt to be more inclusive of hospitals that do not use large vendors and are therefore unable to use proprietary methods for exchange.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 18 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 8 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 18 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,982,429
of 24,169,085 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,962
of 8,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,803
of 334,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#139
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,169,085 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.