47 The Association between eHealth Capabilities and the Quality and Safety of Health Care Table 3 Cross table of overall Elsevier scores and EMRAM scores Overall Score Elsevier EMRAM score Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 0 0 3 0 1 6 2 0 12 3 0 1 14 0 1 14 4 0 34 2 0 0 3 0 0 9 1 0 13 1 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 8 Total 0 1 25 0 2 32 7 0 67 Table 4 correlation of EMRAM scores and Elsevier scores Correlations Overal score Elsevier Patient Orientation Medical Care Effectiveness Effectivenes Treatment Traject EMRAMscore Pearson Correlation .124 .081 .105 .075 .233* Sig. (1-tailed) .158 .258 .199 .272 .035 N 67 67 67 67 67 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed) Looking at underlying indicators, a one tailed significant (0.35 %) negative correlation (−0,223) (Fig. 2) is found between the EMRAM score and the Elsevier 2013 ‘effective treatment’ indicator (see red box in Fig. 1). This ‘effective treatment’ indicator is defined by Elsevier as ‘a measure for how the hospital organizes the treatment process for patients. The boxplot of Fig. 2 also illustrates a negative correlation. Fig. 2 Comparison of median effective treatment score of EMRAM group 0–5 and group 6 3
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw