Abstract
Background The objective of this study was to carry out a bibliographic study on the return on investment concerning the implementation of a computerized clinical decision support in a hospital information system.
Methods A bibliographic search was carried out using the PubMed and Google Scholar bibliographic databases. The articles obtained were selected by combining the elements: outlook, net benefits, comparability, types of costs, discount rate, sensitivity analyzes, and measurement of effectiveness. This enabled us to review 498 articles published during our study period, of which 56 were selected.
Results The most commonly available tools are return on investment estimation methods. The data in the literature on the return on investment concerning the implementation of clinical decision support, although documented, are quite mixed.
Conclusion Evaluations such as the econometric approach can be considered to determine if these investments are justified.
Background
Nobel laureate in economics Robert Solow in a 1987 New York Times interview said, “You can see the computer age everywhere but not in productivity statistics”. As a result, it has become essential to accurately assess the added value of investments in information in general and the health sector. Indeed, clinical decision making is defined as a process of considering and comparing the possibilities, risks, uncertainties, and options to choose a course of action [1,2]. Several studies report that “clinical decision support” improves practitioner performance, providing reminders, summaries, and facilitates coordination of care [3,4,5,6]. They improve the quality and reduce the costs of undue health care [7,8] and others, note a reduction in the length of stay of patients in whom an assisted prescription has been used [9]. But even if most of the players agree on their importance, they nevertheless represent substantial budget lines which have not yet indisputably proven their profitability, which still provokes many debates when it comes to justifying expenditure. corresponding [10]. In a context of scarcity of resources, we are entitled to wonder about the potential return on investment, which could constitute the implementation of a computerized clinical decision support in an information system hospital. Financial benefits generally fall into one of these categories: lower costs, improved productivity (which translates into increased income) and improved competitiveness (which translates into income generation). To account for them we commonly use the return on investment (ROI) which is the ratio of the amount of money gained or lost during an investment over the amount of money invested [11]. A positive ROI suggests a quotient of the total benefits provided by a project over the sum of the investments made to achieve it greater than 1. The object of this present study was to carry out a bibliographic study on the return on investment concerning the implementation. implementation of computerized clinical decision support in a hospital information system.
Material and methods
Between February 28, 2019 and March 30, 2019, we conducted a targeted review of the literature on the return on investment concerning the implementation of a computerized clinical decision support in a hospital information system using the Joanna Briggs Institute Targeted Reviews Guide [Peters et al. (2015)]. Our search was limited to the PubMed1 and “Google schoolar”2 electronic databases. As a first step, we did not include the term “return on investment” as a search term to allow a broad search, which would include all published articles about decision aids. This search strategy included the terms of following searches: “decision support systems, clinical”, “clinical decision support systems”, “decision support systems, clinical”, “decision support, clinical”, “clinical decision supports”, and allowed us to identify the key words MeSH that we have thus combined: Decision support systems, clinical “; “Cost-Benefit analysis”, “decision making, computer-assisted”. Our articles were then selected based on the combination of the following: outlook, net benefits, comparability, types of costs, discount rate, sensitivity analyzes, and measure of effectiveness. This enabled us to review 498 articles published during our study period, of which 56 were selected.
Result
Narrative description of the research selection process accompanied by the research selection flowchart
The flowchart below is inspired by the “PRISMA diagram” (12) and presents the selection process, indicating the results of our research, (see Figure 1).
Selection process for references / abstracts of articles. For the bibliographic study on the return on investment concerning the implementation of a computerized clinical decision support in a hospital information system
Main concepts
A. Return on investment (ROI) [13.14]
It comes from the financial world and is presented as the ratio between the income generated by an investment and the capital placed in this investment. It is usually expressed as a rate. Thus, if an investment costs 10,000 euros, but brings in 15,000 euros, the ROI will be 50%. It is made up of four main indicators:
Net value (NV) and net present value (NPV): which measure, by year and cumulatively, the difference between the consumption of resources and the expected recoverable gains, over the life of the project. The advantage of NPV over NV is that it considers in the calculation the effect of time on value, via the interest rate and monetary erosion or discount rate.
The payback period: this is the number of years and months required for the cumulative cash flow to reach the invested capital. It therefore makes it possible to identify from when the project is profitable.
The internal rate of return (IRR): this is the rate at which there is an equivalence between the invested capital and the total cash flow. For a project to be acceptable, its IRR must be greater than the minimum rate of return required by the establishment. This rate is called the “rejection rate”. An investment projects is more interesting the higher its IRR.
As we can see, the ROI is a very practical and easy ratio to establish when it comes to studying financially valuable investments.
B. Determination of qualitative gains (Balanced Scorecard theory) [15]
It is a method developed by “Norton and Kaplan” in the 1990s. Initially focused on private enterprise, it starts from the observation that traditional performance measurement systems, based on only financial indicators, are detrimental to capacity. companies to create long-term economic value. Conversely, the proposed method aims to reflect the value of the company’s intangible assets, its qualitative value, which cannot be financially valued. Norton and Kaplan therefore propose a measurement system based on 4 items:
Finance,
Performance toward customers,
Internal processes,
Organizational learning.
It seems particularly well suited to information systems projects hospital, insofar as the 4 items mentioned above are found according to the 4 following axes in a hospital:
Improved financial results (cost control, increased revenue),
Improvement of the quality and safety of care (patient satisfaction),
Improvement of organizations and cooperation between professionals,
Improvement of working conditions (satisfaction of hospital professionals).
Main methodologies [16]
The EIFIC-HOC tool
Developed by the MAINH (National Hospital Investment Support Mission) in the context of the relaunch of the investment required by the 2007 Hospital plan in France, its purpose is to calculate the a priori ROI of a project for several different scenarios and hypotheses.
Method developed by GMSIH
This is a guide developed in 2008 by the “Groupement de modernization des Systèmes d’Information Hospitaliers (GMSIH)”, on the basis of the results of three pilot experiments (at the University Hospital of Amiens, Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital and Rennes in France) to set up a hospital information system. This approach does not only aim to determine the return on financial investment, but also to realistically assess the expected performance of the projects to be carried out in a logic of general optimization.
The econometric approach
Unlike the previous two, the measure of capital efficiency (RSI), is done using cost or production functions.
Economic analysis
Four elements structure our analysis:
The definition of the framework of the evaluation
it allowed us on the one hand, to identify which perspective was adopted in the various studies carried out (the company, the patient, health insurance, supplementary insurance, as well as the care establishment …) and secondly, to identify the nature of any comparison made (profitability of the old system compared to the new system …
Identification, measurement and valuation of costs
three (03) types of costs have been identified: direct medical and non-medical costs (costs of valued strategies taking into account staff, consumables, depreciation of the equipment and its maintenance.), indirect costs (indirect costs for the patient) and intangible costs (cost of anxiety).
Description of the type of comparative analysis used
this description highlights cost minimization studies, cost-effectiveness studies (years of life saved, etc.), cost-utility studies (quality, etc.), cost studies -Benefit (avoided costs, willingness to pay, etc.).
Consideration of time and uncertainty
it considers discounting costs and discounting benefits. The summary of the results of this economic analysis are presented in (Table 1):
Main results of the economic analysis of the return on investment
Discussion
The aim of our work was to carry out a bibliographic study on the return on investment concerning the implementation of a computerized clinical decision support in a hospital information system. It emerges that to perform this analysis, the most commonly available tools are methods of estimating the return on investment [26]. Several interesting studies have shown the value of these analyzes in hospitals. However, by their intrinsic nature (financial / economic) the previous methods do not consider the less tangible aspects of the impact of these decision aids. As alternatives, recent studies have shown the value of the econometric approach in evaluating the impact of hospital information systems [27,28,29,30]. However, our study has several limitations. First, the divergent assessment methodologies from one country to another, from one hospital to another do not allow us to come up with a single methodology. As a result, most health establishments cannot carry out a study given the necessary resources, which are significant.
Conclusion
The data in the literature on return on investment concerning the implementation of clinical decision support, although documented, are quite mixed. Some studies have shown that these “expert systems” could offer cost advantages despite ever higher acquisition costs, while others find no added value to justify their use. However, given the uncertainty surrounding the data on the costs and potential gains around their implementation, it is difficult to draw a definitive conclusion as to whether the current return on investment may justify investing more in these. technologies. Evaluations such as the econometric approach in evaluating the impact of hospital information systems can be conducted to determine whether these investments are justified.
Data Availability
not applicable
Author’s contribution
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Gerard Christian KUOTU, had the idea for the article and performed the literature search, Gerard Christian KUOTU and performed the analysis, Gerard Christian KUOTU, and Bride Barth MOUKAM LOWER drafted the article, and Gerard Christian KUOTU critically revised the work.
Funding
None.
Compliance with ethical standards Conflict of interesse
None.
Ethical standards
We confirm that the approval of an institutional review board was not required for this work and we have read the Journal’s position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this work is consistent with those guidelines.
Additional material’s
References
