OBJECTIVE: To understand information systems components important in supporting team-based care of chronic illness through a literature search. DESIGN: Systematic search of literature from 1996-2005 for evaluations of information systems used in the care of chronic illness. MEASUREMENTS: The relationship of design, quality, information systems components, setting, and other factors with process, quality outcomes, and health care costs was evaluated. RESULTS: In all, 109 articles were reviewed involving 112 information system descriptions. Chronic diseases targeted included diabetes (42.9% of reviewed articles), heart disease (36.6%), and mental illness (23.2%), among others. System users were primarily physicians, nurses, and patients. Sixty-seven percent of reviewed experiments had positive outcomes; 94% of uncontrolled, observational studies claimed positive results. Components closely correlated with positive experimental results were connection to an electronic medical record, computerized prompts, population management (including reports and feedback), specialized decision support, electronic scheduling, and personal health records. Barriers identified included costs, data privacy and security concerns, and failure to consider workflow. CONCLUSION The majority of published studies revealed a positive impact of specific health information technology components on chronic illness care. Implications for future research and system designs are discussed.

Although health care organizations seeking to improve quality often must change the system for delivering care, there is little available evidence on how to educate staff and providers about this change. As part of a 2002-2003 Veterans Health Administration multisite project using collaborative care to improve the management of depression, the authors implemented the Translating Initiatives for Depression into Effective Solutions (TIDES) program. Five steps were followed for teaching systems-based practice: (1) determine providers' educational needs (through administrative data, expert opinion, and provider discussion), (2) develop educational materials (based on needs assessed), (3) help each of seven sites develop an educational intervention, (4) implement the intervention, and (5) monitor the intervention's effectiveness. Sites relied primarily on passive educational strategies. There was variable implementation of the different components (e.g., lecture, educational outreach). No site chose to write up its education plan, as was suggested. The authors thus suggest that the educational model was successful at identifying providers' needs and creating appropriate materials, because the program was not advertised in other ways and because almost all providers referred patients to the program. However, the educational model was only partially successful at getting sites to develop and implement an educational plan, although provider behavior did change. Overall, the program was somewhat effective at teaching systems-based practice. The authors believe the best way to enhance effectiveness is to build education into the system rather than rely on a separate system for education.