The purpose of the study was to provide perspective on the changing landscape of information technology professionals due to the convergence of health information managers and health informatics professionals’ roles. Gibson et al. (2015) first reviewed how the definitions and scope of practice of HIM and HIP have evolved. They then compared the similarities and differences of the current competencies for both disciplines. The study also sought to identify the fields that triggered the convergence of roles.
Historical Evolution of HIM and HIP
Health information managers (HIM) and Health information professionals (HIP) roles were distinct in the healthcare frontier. However, the variation between these positions has become blurry over time due to technological advancements and practice mandate. To explore how HIM and HIP have evolved, the authors examined the modifications in the work scope for the two disciplines over time. According to Gibson et al. (2015), HIM dates back to 1928 when the Association of Record Librarians of North America (ARLNA) was striving to standardize clinical practices to improve patient care. HIM’s role at the time was to collect, aggregate, and retrieve medical data from paper-based records. With the recent technological advances in IT systems, however, HIMs roles have shifted from paper-based to IT-based.
The current practice scope for HIMs includes the planning, gathering, aggregating, analyzing, and disseminating information in HIS as opposed to the traditional paper-based data management (Gibson et al., 2015). The research findings by Gibson et al. (2015) were echoed by Brooks (2015). Brooks (2015) linked the HLM’s historical roots to ARLNA, arguing that HIMs roles were rolled out when ARLNA attempted to standardize clinical records. Health information managers at the time would oversee data documentation to ensure that clinical records were complete and accurate.
Changes in nomenclature and definitions characterized the historical evolution of HIP. Jen et al. (2020) define HIP as a discipline that applies problem-solving, decision-making, and scientific inquiry principles to improve human health. Initially, HIP was referred to as biomedical informatics (BIM), clinical informatics, or public informatics. Each of these terminologies had unique definitions that identified their respective scope of practice. For example, BIM was described as a discipline that effectively used clinical data to drive efforts to improve human health initiatives. BIM uses scientific inquiry knowledge and problem-solving and decision-making principles to improve population health through medical data. Clinical informatics was elucidated as a specialty that uses IT to provide health services at the point of care. Public health information (PHI), on the other hand, referred to a study field that conducted population surveillance through the mapping of biomedical data in IT to better the populace’s health. The current HIP’s practice scope originates from integrating the three disciplines (BIM, clinical informatics, and PHI). Currently, HIP applies theories and various scientific principles to generate, retrieve, and manage medical data from IT systems to enhance individual and population health.
Comparison and Differences in Scope of Practice
The difference between HIM and HIP is grounded on the educational and accreditation programs that underpin the respective professional practice. Because accreditation and licensing boards define each discipline’s core competencies, the article’s authors conducted a comparative study based on the HIM and HIP’s accreditation and licensing bodies that have existed in the country for over thirty years. The authors reviewed and compared six major domains described by HIM/HIP accreditation bodies as critical for clinical practice.
The variations between the two disciplines are minimal and primarily tied to how the knowledge was applied in clinical practice. The study revealed that HIM and HIP share over eighty-two percent of academic knowledge conceptualizations (Gibson et al., 2015). The HIM curriculum incorporates such concepts as the system’s design, execution, and compliance with security and privacy programs. HIP’s curriculum also focuses on these conceptualizations but on a lighter note. HIM programs highly underscore the importance of applying such conceptions as data standardization, governance, and representation in practice, whereas HIP emphasizes the theoretical underpinnings of these concepts in practice. For example, an HIM professional will focus on the optimal functioning and efficient implementation of an EHR system based on the system’s internal structure and design. On the other hand, the HIP will center on the algorithm, statistical, and coding part of the system with the primary intention of facilitating interaction and user experience.
Areas of Convergence
The convergence of HIM and HIP is characterized by shared roles and practice mandates in clinical settings. Both HIMs and HIPs educate end-users, maintain patient safety and privacy, and redesign systems (Gibson et al., 2015). Because of the shared roles and similarities in crucial competencies, both disciplines can collaborate and work together to improve the system’s efficiency and quality (Lukaszewski, 2017; Doupi, 2016). The merging of the experiences and competencies from the two disciplines can be instrumental in making cost-effective organizational changes and quick production of evidence-based.
In summation, the evolution of health information management and health informatics has been mediated by accreditation and curriculum changes, which triggers the dissimilarities between the two roles. HIM and HIP’s core competencies are more similar than different, with over 82% of each discipline’s knowledge being similar. The variations between the two fields were minimal and primarily tied to their application in clinical practice. HIM focuses on the design, execution, implementation, and oversight of the health system, while HIP underscores the system’s theoretical foundations and technical aspects. The convergence of responsibilities has caused significant improvements in the healthcare system by enhancing the efficiency of the HIT systems.
References
Brooks, A. (2015). Health information management history: Past, present & future. Rasmussen College. Web.
Doupi, P. (2016). Evolving health IT systems evaluation: The convergence of health informatics and HTA. In E. Ammenwerth, & M. Rigby (Eds.), Evidence-Based Health Informatics: Promoting safety and efficiency through scientific methods and ethical policy (pp. 220-236). IOS Press.
Gibson, C. J., Abrams, K., & Dixon, B. E. (2015). Convergent evolution of health information management and health informatics. Applied Clinical Informatics, 6(1), 163-184. Web.
Jen, M. Y., Mechanic, O. J., & Teoli, D. (2020). Informatics. In StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing. Web.
Lukaszewski, M. (2017). A history of health information technology and the future of interoperability. Bulletin. Web.