Health Information Technology

The Pros and Cons Health Information Technology: Is it Worth Implementing?
Introduction
Various studies have been undertaken in an attempt to highlight the relevance of adopting health information technology in healthcare. While there are those who are of the opinion that health information technology is beneficial to the healthcare system as a whole, others are convinced that the risks and complications posed by health information technology are too significant, and hence the implementation of the same in healthcare settings ought to be halted. This text highlights the arguments that have been presented over time for and against the implementation as well as adoption of health information technology. Upon evaluating and assessing these arguments, I will embrace the side of this debate that appears to have the greatest sway.
Discussion
From the onset, it is important to note that health information technology do not have an assigned definition. This is to say that quite a number of definitions have been offered by various authors in an attempt to define health information technology. In the words of Ciampa and Revels (2012), “healthcare information technology is the use of hardware and software in an effort to manage and manipulate health data and information” (4). This is the definition of health information technology that will be adopted in this text.
When it comes to the benefits of health information technology that have been promoted over time, three themes emerge. These are; quality, safety, and efficiency. To begin with, with regard to quality, it is important to note that technology has been credited with the further enhancement of quality in various industries. Has the healthcare industry been able to follow suit? As Joseph (2013) points out, health information technology effectively leads to the further enhancement of decision making in healthcare settings via the support of knowledge growth. Towards this end, for instance, healthcare institutions can invest in computer assisted knowledge acquisition tools and systems where providers are provided with devices equipped with resources for quick referencing either in practical settings or in the course of other day-to-day activities. This, in turn, leads to better outcomes.
When it comes to safety, good example of health information technology in this case would be computerized physician order entry (CPOE), whereby the various instructions emanating from the physician such as medication orders are entered not on paper, but electronically. Poor handwriting has in the past been blamed for a number of errors (Balgrosky, 2014). With health information systems the probability of the occurrence of such errors are limited as the relevant information is transmitted electronically, with opportunities for the enhancement of accuracy being built-in. Electronic health records (EHRs) also come in handy in the further enhancement of patient safety. Thanks to EHRs, healthcare providers can be able to identify key factors such as drug allergies the patient has, past surgical events, mental health status, etc. (Joseph, 2013). This is more so the case given that in the healthcare field, negative drug interactions as well as drug allergies remain one of the most serious concerns. When providers are able to gain access to the history of patients, especially via web-based EHRs, they are empowered to make decisions that are better informed upon careful assessment of possible drug contraindications.
On the efficiency front, health information technology has in some quarters been credited with betterment of healthcare systems and processes. Joseph (2013) is of the opinion that, for instance, “communication tools would allow providers… to efficiently track medical interventions and progress.” This eliminates unnecessary delays associated with physical confirmation efforts. It would also be important to mention that EHRs have further enhanced efficiency in the provision of care by, amongst other things, permitting the easy and convenient access to the medical history of a patient. This, according to Joseph (2013), means that with EHRs, it is easy for healthcare providers to have a quick, but comprehensive assessment of the patient’s health so as to determine the best interventions to be adopted.
It is, however, important to note that there are those who hold contrary opinion with regard to the contribution health information technology has made to healthcare. Three arguments will be highlighted on this front. To begin with, the implementation of health information technology is likely to be an expensive affair. Costs in this case include, but they are not limited to, licensing fees, software and hardware acquisition costs, system maintenance costs, etc. As a matter of fact, Balgrosky (2014) argues that resources could be put to better use by, for instance, hiring more staff to reduce overtime hours.
Next, it is also important to note that there are those who, like Young and Kroth (2017), are of the opinion that health information technology could put critical data of patients at risk of being accessed by unauthorized parties. This is more so the case with regard to EHRs whereby the health information of patients is collected and stored in a systematic way, and retrieved when needed. The storage of the said information is in a digital format. Some of the information that could be found captured in this format includes the name, age, and the overall health history of a patient. If such information falls into the wrong hands, it could cause irreparable damage to both the actual victims and the healthcare institution concerned (i.e. in terms of law suits).
Third, it should also be noted that in most cases, advances in technology are swift. This means that health information technology has to be constantly updated with aim of ensuring that it does not become obsolete (Balgrosky, 2014). The need for constant updates could get in the way of the smooth running of operations and disrupt activities. Further, unplanned and constant changes could lead to resistance to change on the part of employees – further affecting healthcare operations.
Conclusion
The pros of health information technology by far outweigh the cons of the same. As a matter of fact, some of the cons advanced by various authors can be mitigated via the adoption of various courses of action. With regard to the safety of patient data, it should be noted that various measures could be implemented in an attempt to ensure that the same is secured and prevented from falling into the wrong hands. This could be done by way of ensuring that there are clear rules and regulations regarding the access of such data (i.e. who access such data, when, and how). It is also important to note that currently, there are various regulations already in place that seek to safeguard the integrity of patient data, i.e. HIPAA. When it comes to the charge of constant and swift change, it should be noted that change is inevitable in today’s modern world. Those entities opposed to change are not likely to remain relevant going forward. The cost of implementing health information technology should, on the other hand, be seen as a key investment towards the further enhancement of not only the quality but also the safety, as well as efficiency, of care in healthcare settings. I am, therefore, in favor of the adoption and implementation of health information technology by healthcare institutions.





References
Balgrosky, J.A. (2014). Essentials of Health Information Systems and Technology. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Ciampa, M. & Revels, M. (2012). Introduction to Healthcare Information Technology. Cengage Learning.
Joseph, T. (2013). Healthcare Information Technology Innovation and Sustainability: Frontiers and Adoption: Frontiers and Adoption. New York, NY: IGI Global
Young, K.M. & Kroth, P.J. (2017). Sultz & Young's Health Care USA (9th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.