Abstract
Background To reduce duplicate medical exams and tests for patients across different hospitals and alleviate their financial burden, Zhejiang, with the capital Hangzhou, has launched a digital healthcare reform named “Zhejiang Medical Mutual Recognition” from 2021 and become a pilot province in China. This digital healthcare reform policy has begun to be gradually implemented nationwide. This study aims to evaluate and analyze the differences in physicians’ behavior during the mutual recognition process across different types of hospitals, clinical specialties, and information intervention strategies, in order to provide suggestions and assistance for the optimization and improvement of nationwide mutual recognition policies.
Methods This is a one-year multicenter study involving eight top-tier hospitals in Hangzhou, China, covering various types of hospitals, including general hospitals, traditional chinese medicine hospitals, integrated chinese and western medicine hospitals, and specialized hospitals. A set of recognition indicators, such as recognition proportion, cross-hospital recognition rate, were designed to evaluate physicians’ behaviors, providing a multi-dimensional perspective. Hospitals were grouped and compared based on their characteristics of their clinical specialties. The key recognition indicators among different hospitals, different specialties, and the same specialties in different hospitals were compared. The information intervention strategies were implemented in 3 hospitals to reduce the overlooked access rate and improve recognition rates through the method of information system restrictions. The remaining five hospitals, which did not implement these specific information interventions, served as the control group.
Results The traditional chinese medicine demonstrated a low cross-hospital precision delivery rate but a high rate of recognizing reports from other hospitals, contrasting with pediatrics. There were significant differences in recognition indicators among different clinical specialties. The total recognition proportion for the traditional chinese medicine group and the pediatrics group were 51.18% and 9.95%, respectively. The differences were not significant among the same clinical specialties in different hospitals, however, some recognition indicators were also noticeably affected by the mutual recognition management strategies of the affiliated hospitals. Information intervention in certain hospitals significantly reduced the overlooked access rate; information intervention had increased the workload for physicians in accessing duplicate reports, mainly stemming from the repetitive process of accessing reports from their own hospital both locally and on the platform, without significant affect on the main recognition indicators across hospitals.
Conclusion The recognition indicators designed in this study can effectively assess and provide decision support for mutual recognitio management. Although the treatment characteristics of clinical specialties are factors affecting mutual recognition, the management strategies implemented by hospitals can also significantly change mutual recognition. Hospital management strategies, such as information interventions, need to strike a balance between mutual recognition work and the workload of physicians accessing duplicate reports.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics Committee of Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.