IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v122y2018i11p1232-1239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Migrating to electronic health record systems: A comparative study between the United States and the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Wilson, Karen
  • Khansa, Lara

Abstract

The goal of this research is to compare the healthcare information technology (HIT)-related policies and infrastructures of two very differently-run countries: The United States (US) that owns the largest private healthcare system in the world, and the United Kingdom (UK) that has the largest public healthcare system worldwide. The paper specifically focuses on the differences between the two countries’ adoption of electronic healthcare record (EHR) systems, and their efforts toward interoperability, healthcare information security and privacy, and patient safety. Both authors on the paper are professionals in the HIT field and have firsthand experience designing and implementing electronic health record (EHR) systems. As a result, they both have a real-world grasp of HIT economics and the pressure of regulatory compliance. To complement their combined expertise and insight, the authors thoroughly reviewed the peer-reviewed and grey literature on healthcare policy. The paper’s findings suggest that although EHR implementation and adoption are on the rise in the US and the UK alike, both countries are facing considerable hurdles in executing their vision of establishing their respective nationwide EHR systems. To improve patient health and ensure patient safety, interoperability standards that enable seamless communication amongst differing healthcare systems and proper security and privacy regulations for data collection, data handling, and data sharing are paramount.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilson, Karen & Khansa, Lara, 2018. "Migrating to electronic health record systems: A comparative study between the United States and the United Kingdom," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(11), pages 1232-1239.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:11:p:1232-1239
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.08.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851018304214
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.08.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:122:y:2018:i:11:p:1232-1239. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.