This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement All Versions of this Article: M2475v1 15/2/195    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Korst, L. M. Articles by Fink, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Korst, L. M. Articles by Fink, A.

Identifying Organizational Capacities and Incentives for Clinical Data-sharing: The Case of a Regional Perinatal Information System

^a Childbirth Research Associates, LLC Los Angeles, CA
^b Langley Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA
^c Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Burns & Allen Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA.

^_* Correspondence: Lisa M. Korst, MD, PhD, 12439 Magnolia Boulevard, #154, North Hollywood, CA 91607 (Email: korst{at}usc.edu).

Received for publication: 04/11/07; accepted for publication: 11/04/07.

The development of regional data-sharing among healthcare organizations is viewed as an important step in the development of health information technology (HIT), but little is known about this complex task. This is a case study of a regional perinatal data system that involved four hospitals, together responsible for over 10,000 births annually. Using standard qualitative methods, we chronicled project milestones, and identified 31 "critical incidents" that delayed or prevented their achievement. We then used these critical incidents to articulate six organizational capacity domains associated with the achievement of project milestones, and a seventh domain consisting of organizational incentives. Finally, we analyzed the relationship of milestone achievement to the presence of these capacities and incentives. This data center case suggests four requirements for sharing data across organizations: 1) a readiness assessment; 2) a perceived mandate; 3) a formal governance structure; and 4) a third party IT component.