Bridging the gap: leveraging business intelligence tools in support of patient safety and financial effectiveness
- 1Department of Pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
- 2Duke Health Technology Solutions, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina, USA
- 3Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA
- 4Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
- Correspondence to Dr Jeffrey M Ferranti, Associate Chief Information Officer, Enterprise Analytics and Patient Safety, Duke University Health System, 2424 Erwin Road, DUMC 2718, Suite 1201, Durham, NC 27705, USA; ferra007{at}mc.duke.edu
- Received 3 February 2009
- Accepted 22 December 2009
Abstract
Healthcare is increasingly dependent upon information technology (IT), but the accumulation of data has outpaced our capacity to use it to improve operating efficiency, clinical quality, and financial effectiveness. Moreover, hospitals have lagged in adopting thoughtful analytic approaches that would allow operational leaders and providers to capitalize upon existing data stores. In this manuscript, we propose a fundamental re-evaluation of strategic IT investments in healthcare, with the goal of increasing efficiency, reducing costs, and improving outcomes through the targeted application of health analytics. We also present three case studies that illustrate the use of health analytics to leverage pre-existing data resources to support improvements in patient safety and quality of care, to increase the accuracy of billing and collection, and support emerging health issues. We believe that such active investment in health analytics will prove essential to realizing the full promise of investments in electronic clinical systems.
- Healthcare technology
- hospital information systems
- medical informatics
- medical informatics applications
Footnotes
-
Funding This work was supported by Duke Health Technology Solutions. Other Funders: Duke Health Technology Solutions.
-
Competing interests None.
-
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.









