{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02263856362217018, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01327088212334114, 'mean_word_length': 5.146282973621103, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Use of Mixed Methods to Evaluate RHIS implementation

The purpose of this paper is to describe how to evaluate the spread, sustainability and impact of RHIS during its five years use in one hospital district area. We conducted a retrospective, longitudinal five-year follow-up study and also interviewed both health care professionals and administrative staff, altogether n=43 and patients, n=10. We gathered both qualitative and quantitative data. Both statistical analysis and content analysis were used. Background There are demands to evaluate how beneficial different information systems are like e.g. the Regional Health Information System (RHIS). To get a broader understanding we used the Mixed Methods approach, however having both conceptual and practical challenges. Furthermore, measurements of the impact of RHIS on health outcomes should be part of the implementation process. 1 Examining the improvements in healthcare can be derived from RHIS investment and through providing information that supports health decision-makers at consumer, service provider, regional and national levels. 1-3 Objective The purpose of this paper is to describe how to evaluate the spread, sustainability and impact of RHIS during its five years use in one hospital district area of those 20 district areas in Finland. Material and Methods The utilization rates of RHIS (to measure the spread and sustainability) were collected yearly based on retrospectively from implementation period 2004 to 2008 in primary and special health in all municipalities of the hospital district. We conducted also a retrospective, longitudinal five-year follow-up study based on few selected outcomes for all the federations of municipalities in the selected hospital district in Finland. Additionally, to measure the impact of RHIS the outcomes received were evaluated by interviewing both health care professionals and administrative staff (altogether n=43) and patients (n=10). Both statistical analysis and content analysis were used. Results We got data both qualitative and quantitative one, numerical cut point data from each of the five years the RHIS has been in used and also verbal data after the system has been in use for five years. Conclusion The use of mixed methods through the research process is not just collecting qualitative and quantitative data. The challenge is to understand when you can really say that you used Mixed Methods. References 1. Shapiro JS. Evaluating public health uses of health information exchange. J Biomed Inf. 2007; 40(6):46-9. Page 1 of 2