<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ehealth&#8217;s elusive return on investment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.hansoh.com/2008/09/02/ehealths-elusive-return-on-investment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.hansoh.com/2008/09/02/ehealths-elusive-return-on-investment/</link>
	<description>eHealth, innovation, and health care</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:04:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Pichette</title>
		<link>http://blog.hansoh.com/2008/09/02/ehealths-elusive-return-on-investment/comment-page-1/#comment-2621</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Pichette</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:33:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hansoh.com/2008/09/02/ehealths-elusive-return-on-investment/#comment-2621</guid>
		<description>You are correct, and this is a very important point.  Technology is not a magic bullet, there needs to be process improvement (or redesign) activities, and change management cannot be an after-thought.  The staff needs to buy-in, and it starts at the top with the leadership. This is why so many IT projects (including EMR implementations) fail. You can&#039;t just plug-in the technology and watch it print money.  So, I guess what we are saying is that the ROI needs to be measured against process changes, as oppose to simply isolating the IT expense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are correct, and this is a very important point.  Technology is not a magic bullet, there needs to be process improvement (or redesign) activities, and change management cannot be an after-thought.  The staff needs to buy-in, and it starts at the top with the leadership. This is why so many IT projects (including EMR implementations) fail. You can&#8217;t just plug-in the technology and watch it print money.  So, I guess what we are saying is that the ROI needs to be measured against process changes, as oppose to simply isolating the IT expense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hans</title>
		<link>http://blog.hansoh.com/2008/09/02/ehealths-elusive-return-on-investment/comment-page-1/#comment-2620</link>
		<dc:creator>Hans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:21:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hansoh.com/2008/09/02/ehealths-elusive-return-on-investment/#comment-2620</guid>
		<description>Hi Patrick,

Thanks for the information about Southlake Regional Health Centre. It&#039;s always great to have examples of successes. In this case, I think you point out that IT was not the solution (by itself). There was planning and probably did some important process improvement activities to maximize any investments they made.

If the findings of the AMA&#039;s &quot;Most Wired&quot; survey is any indication, technology is only an extension of an organization&#039;s leadership capabilities. The Most Wired survey shows that the best managed organizations tend to get the most out of their IT investments. I&#039;ve always believed that IT (be it health care or otherwise) is an accelerator: if you are a well run organization, IT can help take you to the next level of productivity and related success. If you are a poorly run organization, no amount of IT will solve your issues, and in fact my accelerate you into a &quot;downward spiral&quot;.

Hans.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Patrick,</p>
<p>Thanks for the information about Southlake Regional Health Centre. It&#8217;s always great to have examples of successes. In this case, I think you point out that IT was not the solution (by itself). There was planning and probably did some important process improvement activities to maximize any investments they made.</p>
<p>If the findings of the AMA&#8217;s &#8220;Most Wired&#8221; survey is any indication, technology is only an extension of an organization&#8217;s leadership capabilities. The Most Wired survey shows that the best managed organizations tend to get the most out of their IT investments. I&#8217;ve always believed that IT (be it health care or otherwise) is an accelerator: if you are a well run organization, IT can help take you to the next level of productivity and related success. If you are a poorly run organization, no amount of IT will solve your issues, and in fact my accelerate you into a &#8220;downward spiral&#8221;.</p>
<p>Hans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Pichette</title>
		<link>http://blog.hansoh.com/2008/09/02/ehealths-elusive-return-on-investment/comment-page-1/#comment-2619</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Pichette</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:12:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hansoh.com/2008/09/02/ehealths-elusive-return-on-investment/#comment-2619</guid>
		<description>Great post Hans. The CEO of FedEx is right, and he has no choice to leverage IT to keep up with the competition. Without IT, he would be crushed.  There isn&#039;t this sense of urgency in healthcare to leverage technology, even though there are countless examples of how IT has helped other industries find cost savings and deliver a better level of service.

We need to shift our thinking around ROI in health IT.  It may be difficult to demonstrate ROI during the planning phase, but if we become proactive and begin to implement more IT health initiatives (and I am not talking about mammoth projects like a national EHR), we will quickly learn more about the ROI issue.

Southlake Regional Health Centre (in Newmarket) recently confirmed several cost and time efficiencies (http://bit.ly/egwb9b) that were gained by leveraging patient self-service technologies (disclaimer: I work with the company that implemented the technology).  They used progressive planning, took the plunge, and made significant progress - not to mention getting some clarity on the ROI issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post Hans. The CEO of FedEx is right, and he has no choice to leverage IT to keep up with the competition. Without IT, he would be crushed.  There isn&#8217;t this sense of urgency in healthcare to leverage technology, even though there are countless examples of how IT has helped other industries find cost savings and deliver a better level of service.</p>
<p>We need to shift our thinking around ROI in health IT.  It may be difficult to demonstrate ROI during the planning phase, but if we become proactive and begin to implement more IT health initiatives (and I am not talking about mammoth projects like a national EHR), we will quickly learn more about the ROI issue.</p>
<p>Southlake Regional Health Centre (in Newmarket) recently confirmed several cost and time efficiencies (<a href="http://bit.ly/egwb9b" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/egwb9b</a>) that were gained by leveraging patient self-service technologies (disclaimer: I work with the company that implemented the technology).  They used progressive planning, took the plunge, and made significant progress &#8211; not to mention getting some clarity on the ROI issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

