J Korean Soc Med Inform.  2009 Sep;15(3):313-320.

A Paradigm Shift in the Healthcare Delivery System with the Emergence of the 'Ambient Care' Environment

• Kim MK
• Kim J

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
Patients are becoming more active in communicating with doctors, forming e-communities, and participating in decision-making process of their treatment plans. However, only a few studies have examined how digitalized healthcare affects patients' and doctors' attitudes towards medical care services and deliverance structure, and the problems that might stem from these changes. In this study, we 1) explored the current changes in patients' healthcare utilization patterns and delivery structures, 2) examined the emerging behaviours and awareness of the participants, and 3) proposed how to prepare for such changes.
METHODS
Face-to-face interviews and a group discussion with both Korean and US experts on consumer health informatics were conducted. Interview guidelines were developed based on reviews of recent studies on consumer health informatics.
RESULTS
While the American scholars had larger expectations about the scope of the changes in the health care system induced by the digitalization of healthcare, compared to the Korean scholars, the interviewees and group discussion participants from both countries all agreed on the changes in medical environment and the increasing importance of medical information. The changes induced by the digitalization of healthcare were categorized as follows: (1) in the structure and location of healthcare service delivery, (2) in the doctor-patient communication methods, and (3) in the role of patients and increasing emphasis in empowerment.
CONCLUSION
We expect that digitalized healthcare will continue to affect the doctor-patient relationship and change the deliverance structure. In order to better prepare for the fundamental paradigm shift in the healthcare system and increase the benefits to society of these changes, continuous and concerted policy efforts to protect the privacy and security of private information, alleviate the digital divide, and secure the quality of digitalized clinical knowledge will be required.

Keyword

E-health; Consumer Health Informatics; Patient Empowerment

MeSH Terms

Delivery of Health Care
Humans
Informatics
Power (Psychology)
Privacy

Reference

1. Ambient intelligence: from vision to reality, 2003. ISTAG. ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/ist/docs/istagist2003_ raft_consolidated_report.pdf.

2. Oh H, Rizo C, Enkin M, Jadad A. What is eHealth (3): a systematic review of published definitions. J Med Internet Res. 2005. 7(1):e1.

3. Pagliari C, Sloan D, Gregor P, Sullivan F, Kahan J, Detmer D, et al. What is eHealth (4): a scoping exercise to map the field. J Med Internet Res. 2005. 7(1):e9.

4. Kim JE. The comparison analysis of opinions towards the concept of consumer health informatics among Korean and American Health Informatics Academic Society members. J Korean Soc Med Informatics. 2005. 11(2):17–25.

5. Braun A, Boden M, Zappacosta M, editors. Healthcare technologies roadmap, The effective delivery of healthcare in the context of an ageing society, Working document. 2003. Accessed April 29, 2007. http://esto.jrc.es/docs/HealthcareTechnologiesRoadmapping.pdf.

6. MacDonald K, Case J, Metzge J. E-Encounters. 2001. Oakland, CA: California Healthcare Foundation.

7. OECD. Accessed April 29, 2007. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/home/.

8. Eysenbach G. What is e-Health? J Med Internet Res. 2001. 3(2):e20.

9. Park HA, Yun EK. The impacts of consumers subjective health literacy on health websites acceptance and empowerment. J Korean Soc Med Informatics. 2006. 12(4):293–304.

10. Wilson P, Leitner C, Moussalli A. Mapping the potential of eHealth: empowering the citizen through eHealth tools and services. 2004. Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration.

11. Davis D, LeMaistre A. Has your organization leveraged the benefits of a computerized patient record? Nurs Case Manag. 1997. 2(6):240–245.

12. LeGrow G, Metzger J. E-disease management. 2001. Prepared for California HealthCare Foundation by First Consulting Group.

13. Bates DW. Using information technology to reduce rates of medication errors in hospitals. BMJ. 2000. 320:788–791.

14. Schneider EC, Epstein AM. Influence of cardiacsurgery performance reports on referral practices and access to care. A survey of cardiovascular specialties. N Engl J Med. 1996. 335(4):251–256.

15. Kim CY. Strategies to safeguard the healthcare insurance subscribers to heighten the credibility towards the insurance system. Healthcare Insurance Forum. 2003. 2(1):10–18.

16. Winkelman WJ, Choo CW. Provider-sponsored virtual communities for chronic patients: improving health outcomes through organizational patient-centered knowledge management. Health Expectations. 2003. 6(4):352–358.

17. Mittman R, Cain M. The future of the Internet in healthcare: a five-year forecast. Hosp Q. 2000. 3(4):63–65.

18. Chung YC. E-Health policy in Korea. J Korean Soc Med Informatics. 2005. 10(4):355–365.

19. Cho JM. Understanding and policies for the digital divide. Journal of KIISE. 2001. 19(9):26–36.

20. Internet Healthcare Coalition. Accessed April 29, 2007. Available at: http://www.ihealthcoalition.org/ethics/ethics.html.