Investing in Information Technology: Where Do Canadian Hospitals Stand?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Investments in information technology (IT) can have a significant impact on an organization’s performance. Well-managed IT investments that are carefully selected and focused on meeting defined needs can propel an organization forward, improving performance while reducing costs. Likewise, poor investments, those that are inadequately justified or whose costs, risks and benefits are poorly managed, can hinder and even restrict an organization’s performance. Investing in information technology (the hardware, software and human capital to mobilize it) in hospitals is a complicated issue. It competes with other pressing matters facing hospital management, such as capital spending on diagnostic and therapeutic equipment, the need for more nursing to address more complex patient needs, the difficulty in managing operating costs in a fundingstrained environment, and achieving efficient, effective and high-quality care processes. The visionary CIO or Director of Information Services will be able to envisage a myriad of IT or Information Management applications that may be able to alleviate or minimize some of these pressures. However, the vision may not reach the decision-makers, or in some cases the proposed solution may carry a heavy cost burden that the organization is just unwilling or unable to incur at the time. It is a situation that many hospitals are facing across Canada. Those who are ready to make some type of investment are left with the question: How much? A recent study by the Governance Institute has indicated that about one-third of hospital boards are becoming more involved in IT purchases.1 Boards need information to make decisions on large investments, such as clinical information systems, and in doing so, they try to identify an industry standard or at least an understanding of what their peers are spending. One of the proxy measures that can be employed to gauge the investment made in IT and its importance for the organization is spending on IT relative to total hospital operating costs. This measure can then be used for comparison among hospitals and even across different industries. The recently released 2001 CIHI/HayGroup Benchmarking Comparison of Canadian Hospitals can provide a better understanding of the investment of IT in Canadian hospitals. The Benchmarking Comparison is an annual study that provides participating hospitals with comparisons of the clinical efficiency, operational efficiency and quality of care of Canadian teaching and community hospitals. A number of hospital financial and productivity indicators, including the derivation of costs with respect to information systems, can be extracted from the study’s benchmarking databases.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,017 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,026 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».