2017 himss leadership and workforce survey leadership... · findings from the 2017 himss leadership...

1 | P a g e

2017 HIMSS

Leadership and

Workforce Survey

1 | P a g e

2017 HIMSS Leadership and Workforce Survey

Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 2

2. Methodology/Respondent Demographics ................................................................. 3

Position-Level ......................................................................................................... 4

3. Key Observations and Implications ........................................................................... 5

DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................. 5

IT Oversight/Influence ............................................................................................. 5

Tax Status .............................................................................................................. 6

LEADERSHIP SURVEY..................................................................................................... 7

Clinical IT Priorities .................................................................................................. 7

IT Executives .........................................................................................................14

IT Budget Projection ...............................................................................................16

WORKFORCE SURVEY ...................................................................................................18

Workforce Size - Current .........................................................................................18

Workforce Vacancy .................................................................................................18

Workforce Size – Change Past Year .........................................................................19

Staffing Activity – Past Year ....................................................................................20

Workforce Size – Projected Change Coming Year ......................................................22

Workforce Challenges – Source ...............................................................................23

Workforce Challenges – Impact ...............................................................................23

Workforce Solution – Use of a Search Agency ...........................................................25

Workforce Solution – Outsource Work ......................................................................26

Workforce Solution – HIMSS Resources ....................................................................27

4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 29

5. About HIMSS ............................................................................................................ 30

6. How to Cite This Study ............................................................................................. 30

7. For More Information ............................................................................................... 30

APPENDIX A – Provider Survey ................................................................................... 31

APPENDIX B – Vendor/Consultant Survey .................................................................. 37

2 | P a g e

1. Executive Summary

The 2017 HIMSS Leadership and Workforce Survey reflects the perspectives of U.S.

health IT leaders on a myriad of topics influencing the health IT industry. Weaving together key

components from two historically seminal HIMSS research efforts (the annual HIMSS

Leadership Survey and the biennial HIMSS Workforce Study), the present report provides

a robust profile of health IT priorities as well as their linkage to various health IT strategic

initiatives (e.g. employment of select IT leaders) and industry economic measures (e.g.

workforce projections).

Based on the feedback from 368 U.S. health IT leaders (210 from a healthcare Provider

organization; 158 from a healthcare IT Vendor/Consulting organization), the findings yield a

few notable themes:

1. Health IT leaders concur on the top clinical IT priorities for the coming year with

divergent priorities pointing to a “healthy tension” within the marketplace.

2. Vendors/Consultants generally have a “good pulse” on the clinical IT priorities of

Hospital-associated Providers with exciting opportunities to target interests in the non-

Hospital Provider market.

3. Health IT continues to be a “bright spot” in the U.S. economy with select markers

suggesting potential challenges ahead in extending health IT’s footprint beyond the

hospital environment.

3 | P a g e

2. Methodology/Respondent Demographics

The robust methodological approach employed suggests the findings in this

report can be considered “directionally correct”.

Findings from the 2017 HIMSS Leadership and Workforce Survey are based on the

feedback from 368 qualified1 U.S. health IT leaders participating in a web survey commissioned

by HIMSS North America, between late November 2016 and early January 2017.

Unique to the design of this year’s survey was the purposeful effort to ensure respondents

reflected an array of healthcare organizations (e.g. health IT leaders in nursing homes).

Individuals responding to the survey invite completed one of two parallel survey instruments

based on the type of healthcare organization most closely reflecting their current employer; a

Provider survey for those employed by a healthcare provider organization and a Health IT

Vendor/Consultant survey for all others.

Provider survey responses were partitioned into one of the following three general care sites in

order to allow for a comparison of provider types:

1. Hospitals and hospital-associated entities (e.g. health system corporate office)

2. Ambulatory organizations (e.g. physician office; freestanding outpatient clinics)

3. LTPAC (Long Term / Post-Acute Care) (e.g. nursing homes)

Over half (57 percent; N = 210) of the 368 respondents included in this year’s study answered

the Provider questionnaire (Graphic 1), with 70 percent of these individuals representing care

settings targeted by the Meaningful Use program (Hospitals and Ambulatory settings).

Graphic 1: Respondent Profile

1 To participate in the survey Provider respondents had to have some level of IT oversight at their

organization and were qualified by asking the extent to which they had “oversight of IT” at their healthcare organization. Of the 430 individuals responding to the survey invite, 61 individuals indicated

they had “no oversight/influence at all” and were therefore excluded from the analysis.

4 | P a g e

Position-Level

Respondents overwhelmingly represent the leaders of health IT within their

respective organizations.

Respondents to both the Provider and the Health IT Vendor/Consultant survey instruments

were asked to indicate which of the following three position-levels best described their role

within their organization:

1. Executive Management

2. Non-Executive Management

3. Non-Management

Nearly 85 percent of all respondents reported to be in a management role, with over 47 percent

associating themselves with an “Executive Management” position. Interestingly, the

participation rate of Executives from Vendor/Consultant organizations (56 percent) was notably

higher than their peers from Provider organizations (41 percent) (Table 1). Drilling deeper into

the Provider respondents reveals that Executives from Ambulatory (48 percent) and LTPAC (51

percent) settings were more likely to participate in the study than those from a hospital-

associated environment (34 percent)

Table 1: Position-Level

Executive Management 56% 41% 34% 48% 51%

Non-Executive Management 28% 44% 43% 39% 48%

Non-Management 17% 15% 23% 13% 2%

Healthcare Providers LTPAC Hospitals Ambulatory

Vendors/ Consultants

5 | P a g e

3. Key Observations and Implications

DEMOGRAPHICS

IT Oversight/Influence

Observation: Securing IT representatives in the non-Hospital Provider

market was a challenge.

Implication: Efforts to advance health IT in the non-Hospital Provider

market will be a challenge without clearly defined IT leaders.

The one survey participation “qualifying” question presented exclusively to Provider respondents

concerned the individual’s level of IT oversight within their organization. Respondents were

presented with four statements and asked to select the one best describing their situation.

Individuals selecting the following descriptions were allowed to complete the survey:

1. Primary oversight

2. Some oversight

3. No oversight but have some influence on the use of clinical IT in our organization

Individuals indicating “no oversight/influence at all” were excluded.

Of the 271 individuals from a Provider organization responding to the survey invite, 61 (23

percent) were excluded from the study. Yet the exclusions were not uniform across provider

type as evidenced in Table 2. Over one-quarter (26 percent) of Ambulatory contacts and more

than one-third (36 percent) of LTPAC contacts were insufficiently qualified to meet the minimal

IT oversight/influence criteria to participate in the study.

Table 2:

Primary oversight 24% 27% 38% 13%

Some oversight 32% 39% 17% 28%

No oversight but have some influence on

the use of clinical IT in our organization 22% 23% 19% 22%

No oversight/influence at all 23% 11% 26% 36%


6 | P a g e

Tax Status

Observation: In general, Hospital and non-Hospital Provider respondents

represent organizations with remarkably different business

drivers.

Implication: The profit motive may play a more significant consideration

for non-Hospital Providers in decisions involving clinical IT

than for Hospital Providers.

Respondents to the Provider survey were asked to identify the tax status of their organization.

While the aggregated responses reveal that over half (59 percent) classified their organization

as a “not-for-profit” entity, the responses varied remarkably by the type of organization

represented. Hospital respondents (72 percent) are heavily represented by “not-for-profit”

organizations whereas Ambulatory (55 percent) and LTPAC (51 percent) respondents tip

towards a predominantly “for-profit” profile (Table 3).

Table 3: Tax-Status

Not-for-Profit 59% 72% 45% 41%

For-Profit 30% 12% 55% 51%

Government 10% 15% 0% 5%


7 | P a g e

LEADERSHIP SURVEY

Clinical IT Priorities

One of the unique features of this year’s Leadership and Workforce Survey surrounds the

approach employed to address the prioritization of clinical IT issues. Presented with a list of

clinical IT priorities, Provider and Vendor/Consultant respondents were asked to indicate the

extent to which each issue would be a priority in the coming year using a seven-point scale (1

= “not a priority”; 7 = “essential priority”). Of significance were the following features:

1. The 18 issues presented to the respondents mirror the education tracks offered at the

HIMSS17 conference

2. Provider and Vendor/Consultant respondents were presented slightly different questions

Providers were asked to identify the clinical IT issues of greatest priority for their

organization in the year ahead

Vendor/Consultant respondents were asked to identify the clinical IT issues of

greatest priority for their clients in the year ahead

This approach yielded a number of significant observations and resulting implications.

Observation: Clinical IT priorities generally fall into high, medium and lower

priorities.

Implication: Clinical IT issues have varying degrees of industry appeal and

efforts/expectations to engage the industry surrounding

these issues should be modified accordingly.

By averaging the Provider and Vendor/Consultant clinical priority assessments to derive an

aggregated score for the two audiences, we notice the priorities can be easily classified into

high, medium and lower priority groupings (Table 4).

Table 4: Aggregated Priority Scores

High Priorities

Privacy, Security and Cybersecurity 5.86

Quality and Patient Safety Outcomes 5.83

Care Coordination, Culture of Care, and Population Health 5.70

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) 5.55

Medium Priorities

Process Improvement, Workflow, Change Management 5.43

8 | P a g e

Compliance, Risk Management and Program Integrity 5.38

Clinical Informatics and Clinician Engagement 5.38

Business of Healthcare and New Payment Models 5.33

Health Information Exchange, Interoperability and Data Access 5.33

Clinical and Business Intelligence 5.24

Consumer and Patient Engagement 5.07

Connected Health 5.03

Leadership, Governance, Strategic Planning 5.02

IT Infrastructure, HIT Standards and Medical Device Integration 4.89

Lower Priorities

Human Factors, User Experience and Design 4.62

Career/Workforce Development and Diversity 4.23

Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Venture Investment 3.98

Genomics/Precision Medicine 3.70

Observation: Providers and Vendors/Consultants are generally aligned on

the highest priorities facing those leveraging clinical IT.

Implication: Efforts to address these select clinical IT issues should enjoy

synergies from a broad spectrum of industry stakeholders.

By averaging the Provider and Vendor/Consultant clinical priority assessments to derive an

aggregated score for the two audiences and then rank-ordering this score from highest priority

(1) to lowest (18), the separate top three issues for both audiences percolate near the top of

each priority list (Table 5).

Table 5: Top Shared Priorities

Privacy, Security and Cybersecurity 3 1

Quality and Patient Safety Outcomes 1 2

Care Coordination, Culture of Care, and Population Health 4 3

Healthcare

Providers

Vendors/

Consultants

9 | P a g e

Observation: Providers and Vendors/Consultants remarkably disconnected

on select priorities.

Implication: Providers and Vendors/Consultants may be “talking” past one

another on key issues resulting in a considerable amount of

inefficiencies.

By continuing the above analysis looking for issues whose ranking reflect the greatest divide

between the two groups, four issues emerge (Table 6). Of significance is the observation that

all four of these issues appear in at least one of the other’s top five-priority list. Note too the

priority Providers place on EHRs compared to Vendors/Consultants.

Table 6: Divergent Priorities

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) 2 8

Business of Healthcare and New Payment Models 10 4

Compliance, Risk Management and Program Integrity 5 10

Health Info. Exchange, Interoperability & Data Access 9 5

Observation: The varied Provider groups are generally aligned on the

highest priorities regarding clinical IT for the coming year.

Implication: Efforts to bridge the divide between the disparate Provider

groups may be facilitated by focusing on those issues of

mutual priority.

When comparing the rank-order of priorities between the three Provider groups considered in

this report, there appears to be a moderate degree of agreement. Indeed, the top three

priorities for all three groups landed in the top-five priority list for Providers as a whole (Table

7).

Healthcare

Providers


10 | P a g e

Table 7: Ranked Priorities - Providers

Quality and Patient Safety Outcomes 1 1 3 1

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) 2 2 7 2

Privacy, Security and Cybersecurity 3 3 1 6

Care Coordination, Culture of Care, and

Population Health 4 4 2 5

Compliance, Risk Management and

Program Integrity 5 6 4 3

Observation: The three Provider groups varied in the “intensity”

surrounding the clinical IT issues assessed.

Implication: There appears to be a “hunger” regarding clinical IT amongst

LTPAC providers that the industry should address.

When looking at the average score of the top-five priorities listed above for each provider

group, LTPAC respondents tended to rate these issues higher than the two other Provider

groups (Table 8).

Table 8: Ranked Priorities - Providers

Quality and Patient Safety Outcomes 5.87 5.85 5.38 6.15

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) 5.72 5.83 5.00 5.87

Privacy, Security and Cybersecurity 5.68 5.76 5.62 5.57

Care Coordination, Culture of Care, and

Population Health 5.64 5.70 5.42 5.65

Compliance, Risk Management and

Program Integrity 5.45 5.31 5.32 5.79

Average Score (Top-Five) 5.67 5.69 5.35 5.80



11 | P a g e

Observation: Vendors/Consultants appear to be more aligned with the

priorities of Hospitals than with the other Provider groups.

Implication: To be a relevant force in advancing clinical IT in the non-

Hospital Provider market, Vendors/Consultants will need to

better understand the interests and needs of Ambulatory and

LTPAC providers.

When comparing the priority assessments of Vendors/Consultants to the three Provider groups,

the “gap” between the Vendors/Consultants’ assessment and the Hospital respondents’

assessment (Graphic 2) is generally narrower than the divide between Ambulatory providers

(Graphic 3) and LTPAC providers (Graphic 4). Note too that Ambulatory respondents were

consistently lower than Vendors/Consultants in their assessment of the clinical IT issues under

consideration. This same pattern did not apply to the Hospital or LTPAC respondents.

Graphic 2: Priority Gap – Hospitals vs. Vendors/Consultants

Gap between Hospitals and Vendors/Consultants Score

Lower Priority

for Hospitals than

for Vendors /

Consultants

Higher Priority

for Hospitals than

for Vendors /

Consultants

12 | P a g e

Graphic 3: Priority Gap – Ambulatory Providers vs. Vendors/Consultants

Gap between Ambulatory Providers and Vendors/Consultants Score

Graphic 4: Priority Gap – LTPAC vs. Vendors/Consultants

Gap between LTPAC Providers and Vendors/Consultants Score

Lower Priority

for Ambulatory

Providers than for

Vendors /

Consultants

Lower Priority

for LTPAC

Providers than for

Vendors /

Consultants

Higher Priority

for LTPAC

Providers than for

Vendors /

Consultants

13 | P a g e

Observation: The clinical IT priorities of For-Profit providers vary

remarkably from Not-For-Profit providers in a few areas.

Implication: Efforts to engage For-Profit providers on clinical IT issues

should highlight the business model impact for the provider.

Analyzing clinical IT priorities by Provider tax status yielded a remarkable, albeit not too

surprising finding. While the vast majority of clinical IT priorities for For-Profit (FP) and Not-For-

Profit (NFP) respondents were similar to one another, these two groups diverged from one

another in three areas (Table 9). Of these three issues, the two most varied priorities

(“Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Venture Investment” and “Business of Healthcare and New

Payment Models”) concerned “business model” issues.

Table 9: Clinical IT Priorities BY Tax Status

Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Venture

Investment 4.13 3.59 0.55

Business of Healthcare and New Payment Models 5.44 4.91 0.53

Process Improvement, Workflow, Change

Management 5.67 5.27 0.40

For-Profit Not-For-

Profit Difference

14 | P a g e

IT Executives

Observation: Hospitals tend to have a more populated IT Executive profile

than Ambulatory and LTPAC providers.

Implication: Efforts to advance health IT in non-Hospital Provider settings

may be hobbled by the lack of IT champions.

Provider respondents were asked to identify which of the following three IT executives were

employed by their organization:

1. Chief Information Officer

2. A senior clinical IT leader (e.g. CMIO, CNIO)

3. A senior information security leader (e.g. CISO)

To no surprise, a higher percentage of Hospital respondents (87 percent) reported that their

organization employed at least one of the identified IT executives than the other Provider types

(Table 10). Of the three IT leadership roles considered, the most commonly cited role was Chief

Information Officer (60 percent). Perhaps most notable is the relatively high percentage of

Ambulatory (32 percent) and LTPAC (32 percent) organizations reporting their organization did

not employ a dedicated senior IT executive.

Table 10: Employed IT Executives

At least one of the following 73% 87% 58% 54%

Chief Information Officer 60% 78% 45% 32%

A senior clinical IT leader (e.g. CMIO, CNIO) 48% 65% 29% 27%

A senior information security leader (e.g. CISO) 32% 41% 23% 21%

None of the above 20% 10% 32% 32%


15 | P a g e

Observation: Organizations with a senior clinical IT leader vary from other

Providers in a few notable areas.

Implication: The specific impact senior clinical IT leaders have in the

organization is not immediately clear but worthy of exploring.

Analyzing the respondent’s clinical IT priorities by the presence of a senior clinical IT executive

within the organization yields notable differences in select areas (Table 11). Most notably

surrounds the elevated priority of Clinical and Business Intelligence for organizations with a

senior clinical executive.

Table 11: Clinical IT Priorities BY Presence of Senior Clinical IT Leader

Clinical and Business Intelligence 5.49 4.83 0.66

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) 6.00 5.47 0.53

Consumer and Patient Engagement 5.32 4.83 0.48

Presented with a seven-point scale (1 = “Strongly disagree”; 7 = “Strongly agree”), providers

were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed their clinicians (medical staff and

nursing staff) had a favorable attitude towards the deployment of clinical IT in their respective

organization (Table 12). While Providers as a whole were generally more positive surrounding

the nursing staff’s assessment of clinical IT, the medical staff in organizations with a senior

clinical IT leader were notably more satisfied with clinical IT than other provider organizations.

Table 12: Clinician Satisfaction BY Presence of Senior Clinical IT Leader

Medical staff 4.98 5.05 4.92 0.13

Nursing staff 5.14 5.10 5.18 -0.08

Difference Clinical IT

Leader

No Clinical IT Leader

Difference Clinical IT

Leader

No Clinical IT Leader

Healthcare Providers

16 | P a g e

IT Budget Projection

Observation: The majority of Providers and Vendors/Consultants project

their IT budgets to INCREASE this year, although Providers

were not as uniform in their projections as

Vendors/Consultants.

Implication: Health IT continues to be a “bright spot” in the economy.

Both Providers and Vendors/Consultants were asked to indicate if their respective organization’s

IT operating budget was projected to increase during the next fiscal year. As depicted in Table

13, the majority of respondents from all audiences responded positively. That said, Providers

(56 percent) were generally more muted in their optimism than Vendors/Consultants (87

percent).

Table 13: IT Budget Projection

Increase 87% 56% 57% 55% 57%

Stay the same 5% 19% 17% 26% 18%

Decrease 4% 12% 18% 7% 3%

While the majority of Hospital Provider’s project an increase in their IT budget projection this

year, it is worthy to note that these findings represent a decrease of 11 percentage points from

the 2016 HIMSS Leadership Survey findings (Table 14).

Table 14: Hospital IT Budget Projection – 2016 vs. 2017 Comparison

2016 2017 Change

Increase 65% 57% -8%

Stay the same 21% 17% -4%

Decrease 7% 18% 11%



Hospitals

17 | P a g e

As would be expected, IT budgetary projections do appear to have an impact on a Provider’s

clinical IT priorities. By separating Providers into two groups based on their IT budget

projection (Increase/Stay the Same and Decrease) and then comparing priority scores, the

priority assigned to the Electronic Health Record presents the most striking difference. Providers

projecting a “decrease” in their IT Budget assign a much lower priority to the EHR than those

expecting to “increase” or at least maintain their current IT budget (Table 15).

Table 15: Provider Clinical IT Priorities BY Projected IT Budget

Electronic Health Record 5.86 5.16 0.70

Difference Increase/Stay

the Same Decrease

18 | P a g e

WORKFORCE SURVEY

Workforce Size - Current

Observation: A remarkable percentage of Ambulatory and LTPAC Providers

report having no FTE IT workers.

Implication: Efforts to advance clinical IT in non-Hospital Provider

environments can be challenging when there is no dedicated

IT workforce.

When asked to indicate the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) IT workers employed by their

organization, hospital-associated respondents tended to report the largest workforces (Table

16). While not surprising, the disconcerting finding involves the relatively high percentage of

Ambulatory (16 percent) and LTPAC (13 percent) providers reporting no FTE IT workers.

Table 16: Workforce Size – Current

1-5 FTE IT staff positions 20% 11% 16% 37%

5-20 FTE IT staff positions 18% 17% 32% 11%

More than 20 FTE IT staff positions 44% 64% 26% 16%

None of the above 6% 0% 16% 13%

Workforce Vacancy

Observation: The majority of health IT employers have positions they are

looking to fill.


All respondents were asked to characterize their organization’s current IT staffing occupancy.

The findings suggest the demand for health IT workers is strong as evidenced by the fact that


19 | P a g e

only 32 percent of Vendors/Consultant organizations and 38 percent of Provider organizations

claim they are fully-staffed (Table 17).

Table 17: Workforce Vacancy

We are fully staffed 32% 38% 29% 48% 49%

We have open positions to

fill 61% 43% 61% 32% 14%

Workforce Size – Change Past Year

Observation: The majority of health IT employers grew or at least

maintained the size of their IT workforce.


Both Providers and Vendor/Consultants were asked how the size of their current IT workforce

compares to their workforce twelve months ago. While the majority of Vendor/Consultant

respondents (61 percent) claimed their workforce increased in size, Providers were not as

definitive (Table 18). That said, the majority of organizations grew or at least maintained the

size of their workforce.

Table 18: Workforce Size – Change Past Year

Increased 61% 42% 53% 39% 24%

Stayed the same 17% 28% 17% 36% 44%

Decreased 15% 12% 17% 3% 8%





20 | P a g e

Staffing Activity – Past Year

Observation: The majority of health IT employers successfully filled at least

one health IT position this past year, with IT support roles

dominating as the most commonly filled positions.


Both Providers and Vendor/Consultants were asked if they hired a health IT worker during the

past year, and if so, to indicate the type of worker hired (NOTE: Given the fundamentally

different functions these two audiences play in the health IT industry, the types of roles

presented to the respondents were reflective of the hiring organizations).

As depicted in Graphic 5, the majority of Providers (61%) and Vendors/Consultants (79%)

report to have hired at least one FTE health IT worker this past year. We do see a notable

variance in the hiring experiences by Provider type though. Hospital-associated respondents (80

percent) were much more likely to report their organization hired a health IT worker than

Ambulatory (58 percent) or LTPAC (27 percent) respondents.

Graphic 5: Staffing Activity – Past Year

As a general category, the most common type of health IT roles hired by Providers this past

year can be classified as IT Support positions (e.g. Help Desk; Clinical Application Support). The

propensity for IT Support personnel was consistent across Provider types (Table 19).

21 | P a g e

Table 19: Provider Positions Filled – Past Year

Management 63% 70% 33% 59%

Development 28% 32% 11% 24%

Implementation 47% 56% 17% 29%

Support 93% 98% 83% 77%

While the percentage of Hospitals having hired IT staff this year (80 percent) is similar (81

percent) to the results obtained in the last HIMSS Workforce Survey (published during the end

of 2014), an analysis of specific IT roles reveals some interesting shifts (Table 20). With the top

three most commonly sought roles being Project Manager (57 percent), Help-Desk (56 percent)

and Clinical Application Support (55 percent), the current demand for Project Managers “sky-

rocketed” (increased 22 percentage points) compared to the 2014 findings.

Table 20: Top Hospital IT Positions Filled (Past Year) – 2014 vs. 2017 Comparison

2014 2017 Change

Hospitals (hired at least one IT worker) 81% 80% -1%

Project Management 35% 57% 22%

Help Desk 57% 56% -1%

Clinical Application Support 64% 55% -9%

IT Management 45% 46% 1%

Clinical Informaticist/Clinical Champion 29% 45% 16%

Systems Integration 22% 39% 17%

System Design and Implementation 29% 34% 5%

The Vendor/Consultant industry appears to be in a period of transition. While the vast majority

of Vendors/Consultants (79 percent) report to have hired at least IT related worker this past

year, the activity level is down noticeably from the levels reported in the 2014 HIMSS Workforce

Survey (91 percent) (Table 21). The most common class of worker hired by

Vendors/Consultants this past year can be classified as Field Support Staff roles (50 percent).

Yet it is the decline in the percentage of Sales/Marketing personnel (37 percentage points)

which perhaps presents as the most telling regarding the state of this industry.


Hospitals

22 | P a g e

Table 21: Top Vendor/Consultant IT Positions Filled (Past Year) – 2014 vs. 2017

Comparison

2014 2017 Change

Vendors/Consultants (hired at least one IT worker) 91% 79% -12%

Field Support Staff (i.e. Systems Implementers) 75% 50% -25%

Support Staff (i.e. HR, Finance Team, Web Team) 73% 42% -31%

Sales/Marketing Team 78% 41% -37%

Executive Team 60% 39% -21%

Workforce Size – Projected Change Coming Year

Observation: The majority of Vendor/Consultant organizations are

projecting a positive growth in the size of their workforce

while Providers have a more muted view.

Implication: Vendors/Consultants and Providers will have remarkably

different health IT staffing needs this coming year.

Both Providers and Vendor/Consultants were asked how the size of their current IT workforce is

expected to change in the next twelve months. Interestingly, Vendor/Consultant respondents

(66 percent) were much more positive about their workforce growth than the Providers (31

percent) (Table 22). With the vast majority of audiences projecting their workforce to grow or

at least remain the same, Hospital-associated respondents (36 percent) were more favorable

about their workforce growth than Ambulatory (26 percent) or LTPAC (22 percent) respondents.

Table 22: Workforce Size – Projected Change Coming Year

Increase 66% 31% 36% 26% 22%

Stayed the same 16% 36% 32% 48% 38%

Decrease 4% 10% 16% 3% 3%

Vendors/

Consultants



23 | P a g e

Workforce Challenges – Source

Observation: Providers are primarily challenged in the recruitment and

development of IT workers.

Implication: Providers may be most receptive to efforts to support their

internal IT staff recruitment and development activities.

The focus of the Provider’s survey turned to the challenges organizations may face in

overseeing a health IT workforce. Respondents were presented with a list of five issues known

to challenge an organization’s health IT staffing/workforce efforts, and asked to rate the extent

to which issue presented as a challenge the past year. By rank-ordering the issues (1 = most

challenging issue) for each Provider group we note a fairly high-degree of consistency as the

top two issues for all audiences involved employee recruitment and development (Table 23).

Table 23: Workforce Challenges - Source

Developing the skills of current IT staff 1 1 2 2

Recruitment of qualified IT workers 2 2 1 1

Retention of qualified IT staff 3 3 4 4

Managing the performance of current

IT staff 4 4 3 3

Retirement of “baby boomer” IT staff 5 5 5 5

Workforce Challenges – Impact

Observation: Over one-third of health IT employers are negatively impacted

by health IT staffing challenge.

Implication: The sense of urgency to address health IT staffing concerns

varies by Provider type.

Both Vendors/Consultants and Provider respondents were then asked if their organization had

been negatively impacted by a workforce challenge during the past year. Over one-third of


24 | P a g e

Vendors/Consultant (37 percent) and Provider respondents (36 percent) claimed their

organization was forced to place on hold or scale back an IT project or initiative in the past year

(Table 24). Providers were more likely to place on hold a project (32 percent) than

Vendors/Consultants (26 percent). The pervasiveness of the impact in the Provider market

appears to be more acutely experienced in hospitals (47 percent).

Table 24: Workforce Challenges - Impact

Negatively Impacted - Yes 37% 36% 47% 39% 14%

Place on Hold 26% 32% 44% 29% 12%

Scaled back 30% 30% 40% 32% 10%

Of interest is the Hospital response to staffing challenges. A comparison of the current results

to the 2014 HIMSS Workforce Survey suggests Hospitals are accelerating their willingness to

place projects “on hold “ (9 percentage point change) (Table 25).

Table 25: Top Hospital IT Positions Filled (Past Year) – 2014 vs. 2017 Comparison

2014 2017 Change

Place on Hold 35% 44% 9%

Scaled back 38% 40% 2%



Hospitals

25 | P a g e

Workforce Solution – Use of a Search Agency

Observation: Over 40 percent of Vendors/Consultants and Hospitals having

filled at least one health IT position this past year used the

services of an executive search agency; utilization rates

notably lower in other Provider settings.

Implication: The non-Hospital Provider market presents as a growth

market for search agencies as the use of IT expands in these

environments.

One of the industry solutions to assist health IT employers in overcoming workforce recruitment

challenges is to leverage the services of an executive search firm. Of the Vendors/Consultants

and Providers claiming to have hired at least one health IT worker this past year, 46 percent of

Vendors/Consultants and 37 percent of Providers used a search firm (Table 26). Of interest is

the decline in the usage of staffing agencies by Vendors/Consultants (-11 percent) and

Hospitals (-11 percent) when comparing the current study results to the 2014 HIMSS Workforce

Survey.

Table 26: Workforce Solution – Use of a Search Agency

Used a Search Agency (2017) 46% 37% 41% 28% 24%

Used a Search Agency (2014) 57% - 52% - -

Change -11% - -11% - -



26 | P a g e

Workforce Solution – Outsource Work

Observation: Outsourcing work to an external health IT vendor or

consultancy is a common practice leveraged by all Provider

groups.

Implication: Outsourcing organizations play an important role in assisting

organizations address workforce challenges.

One strategy healthcare providers can pursue in meeting their IT staffing needs is to outsource

select tasks to an external company. This strategy appears to be widely embraced by provider

organizations. In fact, 60 percent of healthcare provider respondents indicated their

organization outsourced at least some of their IT staffing needs to a vendor or consultant rather

than hiring the workers directly (Table 27).

Table 27: Workforce Solution – Outsource Work

Outsourced Work - Yes 60% 65% 71% 44%

The most common class of health IT roles outsourced by Providers this past year were IT

Support positions (e.g. Help Desk; Clinical Application Support). The propensity to hire IT

Support personnel was consistent across Provider types (Table 28).

Table 28: Type of Work Outsourced – Past Year

Management 45% 45% 18% 61%

Development 31% 36% 18% 29%

Implementation 50% 49% 36% 61%

Support 82% 81% 77% 86%

When analyzing the specific IT positions outsourced by Hospitals this past year, the most

commonly outsourced role was Project Manager (40 percent), followed by Programmer (36



27 | P a g e

percent) (Table 29). These two roles, along with Help Desk, reflected the greatest shift in

demand when compared to the 2014 HIMSS Workforce Survey findings.

Table 29: Top Hospital IT Positions Outsourced (Past Year) – 2014 vs. 2017

Comparison

2014 2017 Change

Project Management 25% 40% 15%

Programming 19% 36% 17%

Clinical Application Support 30% 31% 1%

System Design and Implementation 25% 29% 4%

Help Desk 12% 28% 16%

Systems Integration 22% 23% 1%

Workforce Solution – HIMSS Resources

Observation: The HIMSS Annual Conference is the most recognizable

workforce/staffing resource offered by HIMSS; Of the

different Provider groups, LTPAC Providers are the least

aware of HIMSS’ varied resources.

Implication: The HIMSS Annual Conference presents an excellent

opportunity to introduce the health IT industry to the full

array of HIMSS’ workforce/staffing resources.

Implication: The LTPAC market could benefit from an increased awareness

of HIMSS’ workforce/staffing resources.

Finally, all survey participants were presented with a list of HIMSS resources designed to assist

health IT employers in addressing a variety of workforce challenges, and asked to indicate

whether or not they were aware of said resource. As reflected in Table 30, the HIMSS Annual

Conference is understandably the most recognizable health IT workforce/staffing resource, yet

market awareness varied by Provider group, most notably the LTPAC respondents (25 percent).

Hospitals

28 | P a g e

Table 30: Workforce Solution – HIMSS Resources

Annual Conference 79% 57% 72% 65% 25%

CPHIMS certification 59% 49% 62% 52% 21%

CAHIMS certification 58% 47% 60% 52% 21%

Learning Center 56% 41% 52% 45% 20%

HIT Career Compensation

Survey 51% 35% 46% 39% 13%

HIMSS Scholarships 41% 32% 43% 29% 13%

JobMine 46% 31% 44% 32% 7%

The TIGER Initiative 22% 28% 35% 29% 13%

eMentoring 23% 17% 18% 16% 13%



29 | P a g e

4. Conclusion

Findings from the 2017 HIMSS Leadership and Workforce Survey suggest both Providers

and Vendor/Consulting organizations share many of the same clinical IT priorities for this

coming year, most notably issues involving privacy, security and cybersecurity as well as care

coordination, culture of care, and population health. That said, there do appear to be some

remarkable disconnects between the two audiences worthy of attention, such as the priority

placed on the Electronic Health Record (EHR). The divergent priorities highlight a “healthy

tension” within the marketplace as Providers and Vendors/Consultants wrestle on ensuring each

is focused on the concerns they deem most relevant.

The findings also paint Vendors/Consultants as having a “good pulse” on the clinical IT priorities

of Hospital-associated Providers. Yet the same findings revealed some remarkable variances in

the assessment of clinical IT priorities between Vendors/Consultants and non-Hospital Providers

suggesting there are a number of exciting targeted interests the Vendor/Consultant community

may want to pursue in the non-Hospital Provider market this coming year.

Finally, the findings clearly reinforce the importance of health IT to the U.S. economy. Health IT

workers have been able to look to Provider and Vendor/Consulting organizations for gainful

employment this past year, especially true for those pursuing Supportive IT roles (e.g. field

support staff; Help Desk functions). Buoyed by expectations that IT budgets for both Provider

and Vendor/Consulting organizations will grow or at least remain the same this coming year,

health IT workers should be able to expect their services to continue to be in demand. A few

notable markers specific to the non-Hospital Provider community nevertheless counterbalance

these positive workforce metrics, suggesting potential challenges ahead in extending health IT’s

footprint beyond the hospital environment. These will be issues we will want to closely monitor

in the next HIMSS Leadership and Workforce Survey.

30 | P a g e

5. About HIMSS The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) is a global, cause-

based, not-for-profit organization focused on better health through information technology (IT).

In North America, HIMSS focuses on health IT thought leadership, education, events, market

research, and media services. Founded in 1961, HIMSS North America encompasses more than

64,000 individuals, of which more than two-thirds work in healthcare provider, governmental,

and not-for-profit organizations, plus over 640 corporations and 450 not-for-profit partner

organizations, that share this cause.

6. How to Cite This Study Individuals are encouraged to cite this report and any accompanying graphics in printed matter,

publications, or any other medium, as long as the information is attributed to the 2017 HIMSS

Leadership and Workforce Survey.

7. For More Information Joyce Lofstrom

Senior Director, Corporate Communications

HIMSS

33 W. Monroe, Suite 1700

Chicago, IL 60603

312-915-9237

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

31 | P a g e

APPENDIX A – Provider Survey

HIMSS 2017 Health IT Leadership and Workforce Survey Provider Version

1. Which of the below best describes the type of healthcare organization for which you work?

Hospital-Based Organization

О Stand Alone Hospital

О Hospital that Is Part of a Health Care Delivery System

О Entity that is Part of a Health Care Delivery System (e.g. Corporate Office; Ambulatory

Clinic)

Ambulatory Organization

О Physician Office

О Outpatient Clinic

Long Term/Post-Acute Care (LTPAC) Organization

О Home Health Care

О Skilled Nursing Facility/Senior Care Facility

О Behavioral Health

О Independent Rehabilitation Facility

Non-Provider Health IT Organization

О Health IT Vendor Organization If selected send to Vendor/Consultant survey

О Health IT Consulting Firm If selected send to Vendor/Consultant survey

Other

О Other (please specify) If selected send to Vendor/Consultant survey

2. Please indicate the tax-status of the healthcare organization for which you work.

О For-Profit

О Not-For-Profit

О Government

О Don’t Know

3. Which role below best describes the position you hold within your organization?

О Executive Management

О Non-Executive Management

О Non-Management

4. To what extent do you have oversight of IT at your healthcare organization?

О Primary oversight

О Some oversight

О No oversight but have some influence on the use of clinical IT in our organization

О No oversight/influence at all If “No oversight/influence at all” is selected END SURVEY

32 | P a g e

5. To what extent are the below issues a priority for your clinical IT efforts in the next 12 months?

a. Business of Healthcare and New Payment Models

b. Care Coordination, Culture of Care, and Population Health

c. Career/Workforce Development and Diversity

d. Clinical and Business Intelligence

e. Clinical Informatics and Clinician Engagement

f. Compliance, Risk Management and Program Integrity

g. Connected Health

h. Consumer and Patient Engagement

i. Electronic Health Records (EHRs)

j. Genomics/Precision Medicine

k. Health Information Exchange, Interoperability and Data Access

l. Human Factors, User Experience and Design

m. Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Venture Investment

n. IT Infrastructure, HIT Standards and Medical Device Integration

o. Leadership, Governance, Strategic Planning

p. Privacy, Security and Cybersecurity

q. Process Improvement, Workflow, Change Management

r. Quality and Patient Safety Outcomes

Not a priority Low priority

Somewhat of

a priority Neutral

Moderate

priority

High

priority

Essential

priority

О О О О О О О

6. To what extent do you agree with the below statements?

a. The medical staff has a favorable attitude towards the deployment of clinical IT in our

organization

b. The nursing staff has a favorable attitude towards the deployment of clinical IT in our

organization

Strongly

disagree Disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither agree

or disagree

Somewhat

agree Agree

Strongly

disagree


7. Which of the below IT executives does your organization employ? (select all that apply)

О Chief Information Officer

О A senior clinical IT leader (e.g. CMIO, CNIO)

О A senior information security leader (e.g. CISO)

О None of the above If selected skip to Q9

О Don't know If selected skip to Q9

8. To what extent do you agree with the below statements?

Only display if “Chief Information Officer” selected in Q7

a. Our CIO is considered to be part of the organization's executive team

b. Our CIO has primary responsibility for presenting IT issues to the Board of Directors

Only display if “A senior clinical IT leader” selected in Q7

c. Our senior clinical IT leader (e.g. CMIO, CNIO) is considered to be part of the

organization's executive team

Only display if “A senior Information security leader” selected in Q7

d. Our senior information security leader is considered to be part of the organization's

executive team

Strongly

disagree Disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither agree

or disagree

Somewhat

agree Agree

Strongly

disagree


33 | P a g e

9. Please select the statement which best describes the projected change, if any, to your

organization’s IT operating budget for the next fiscal year.

О It will definitely increase

О It will probably increase

О No change

О It will probably decrease

О It will definitely decrease

О Don't know

HEALTH IT WORKFORCE STUDY Questions

10. How many Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) IT staff positions (filled and open) support your

organization.

О No one FTE staff position dedicated to supporting our organization’s IT needs

О 1 – 5 If selected skip to Q12

О 5 – 20 If selected skip to Q12

О More than 20 If selected skip to Q12

О Don’t Know If selected skip to Q12

11. Please describe how your organization’s IT needs are supported.

[OPEN TEXT]

12. How would you characterize your organization’s current IT staffing profile?

О We are fully staffed

О We have open positions to be filled

О Don’t Know

13. Compared to this time last year, has the total number of FTE IT staff positions (filled and open)

in your organization changed?

О Yes – it increased

О Yes – it decreased

О No

О Don’t know

14. Compared to this time next year, do you expect the total number of IT FTE staff positions

(filled and open) in your organization to change?

О Yes – the number of IT FTE positions should increase

О Yes – the number of IT FTE positions should decrease

О No

О Don’t know

15. During the past year, did your organization hire any IT FTEs?

О Yes

О No If selected skip to Q17

О Don’t know If selected skip to Q17

34 | P a g e

16. During the past year, in what areas did your organization hire IT FTE staff? (Please select all

that apply)

Management

О IT Management

О Project Management

Development

О Programming

Implementation

О Process/Workflow Design

О System Design and Implementation

О Systems Integration

Support

О Architect

О Clinical Application Support

О Clinical Informaticist/Clinical Champion

О Database Administration

О Financial Application Support

О Help Desk

О Infrastructure

О Internet/Intranet

О IT Security

О Manage Mobile Devices

О Regulatory, Reimbursement and Accreditation Issues (e.g. Meaningful Use)

О User Training

О Other (please specify)

О Don’t know

17. During the past year, did your organization outsource any of your IT services to a vendor or a

consultant?

О Yes



18. In what areas did you outsource your IT services to a vendor or a consultant? (Please select

all that apply)

Management

О IT Management

О Project Management

Development

О Programming

Implementation

О Process/Workflow Design

О System Design and Implementation

35 | P a g e

О Systems Integration

Support

О Architect

О Clinical Application Support

О Clinical Informaticist/Clinical Champion

О Database Administration

О Financial Application Support

О Help Desk

О Infrastructure

О Internet/Intranet

О IT Security

О Manage Mobile Devices

О Regulatory, Reimbursement and Accreditation Issues (e.g. Meaningful Use)

О User Training


О Don’t know

19. To what extent do you agree that the following issues presented as a challenge to your

organization’s health IT staffing/workforce efforts during the past year?

20. Recruitment of qualified IT workers

21. Retention of qualified IT staff

22. Retirement of “baby boomer” IT staff

23. Managing the performance of current IT staff

24. Developing the skills of current IT staff

Strongly

disagree Disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither agree

or disagree

Somewhat

agree Agree

Strongly

disagree


20. Did you scale back any IT projects or IT initiatives this past year because of any health IT

staffing/workforce challenges faced by your organization?

О Yes

О No

О Don’t Know

21. Did you place on hold any IT projects or IT initiatives this past year because of any health IT


О Yes

О No

О Don’t Know

22. Did you use the services of a IT staffing/executive search firm this past year?

О Yes

О No

О Don’t Know

36 | P a g e

23. Are you aware of the following HIMSS resources to support an organization’s health IT

workforce/staffing efforts?

Yes No

JobMine О О

CAHIMS certification О О

CPHIMS certification О О

Learning Center О О

Annual Conference О О

eMentoring О О

HIT Career Compensation Survey О О

HIMSS Scholarships О О

The TIGER Initiative О О

37 | P a g e

APPENDIX B – Vendor/Consultant Survey

HIMSS 2017 Health IT Leadership and Workforce Survey Vendor Version

1. Which of the below best describes the type of healthcare organization for which you work?

Hospital-Based Organization

О Stand Alone Hospital If selected send to Provider survey

О Hospital that Is Part of a Health Care Delivery System If selected send to Provider survey

О Entity that is Part of a Health Care Delivery System (e.g. Corporate Office; Ambulatory

Clinic) If selected send to Provider survey

Ambulatory Organization

О Physician Office If selected send to Provider survey

О Outpatient Clinic If selected send to Provider survey

Long Term/Post-Acute Care (LTPAC) Organization

О Home Health Care If selected send to Provider survey

О Skilled Nursing Facility/Senior Care Facility If selected send to Provider survey

О Behavioral Health If selected send to Provider survey

О Independent Rehabilitation Facility If selected send to Provider survey

Non-Provider Health IT Organization

О Health IT Vendor Organization

О Health IT Consulting Firm

Other


2. Which role below best describes the position you hold within your organization?

О Executive Management

О Non-Executive Management

О Non-Management

38 | P a g e

3. To what extent are the below issues projected to be a priority for your clinical IT clients in the

next 12 months?

s. Business of Healthcare and New Payment Models

t. Care Coordination, Culture of Care, and Population Health

u. Career/Workforce Development and Diversity

v. Clinical and Business Intelligence

w. Clinical Informatics and Clinician Engagement

x. Compliance, Risk Management and Program Integrity

y. Connected Health

z. Consumer and Patient Engagement

aa. Electronic Health Records (EHRs)

bb. Genomics/Precision Medicine

cc. Health Information Exchange, Interoperability and Data Access

dd. Human Factors, User Experience and Design

ee. Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Venture Investment

ff. IT Infrastructure, HIT Standards and Medical Device Integration

gg. Leadership, Governance, Strategic Planning

hh. Privacy, Security and Cybersecurity

ii. Process Improvement, Workflow, Change Management

jj. Quality and Patient Safety Outcomes

Not a priority Low priority

Somewhat of

a priority Neutral

Moderate

priority

High

priority

Essential

priority


4. Please select the statement which best describes the projected change, if any, to the

volume of clinical IT business your organization addresses during the next fiscal year.

О It will definitely increase

О It will probably increase

О No change

О It will probably decrease

О It will definitely decrease

О Don't know

HEALTH IT WORKFORCE STUDY Questions

5. How would you characterize your organization’s current staffing profile?

О We are fully staffed

О We have open positions to be filled

О Don’t Know

6. Compared to this time last year, has the total number of FTE staff positions (filled and open) in

your organization changed?

О Yes – it increased

О Yes – it decreased

О No

О Don’t know

39 | P a g e

7. Compared to this time next year, do you expect the total number of IT FTE staff positions

(filled and open) in your organization to change?

О Yes – the number of FTE positions should increase

О Yes – the number of FTE positions should decrease

О No

О Don’t know

8. During the past year, did your organization hire any FTEs?

О Yes



9. During the past year, in what areas did your organization hire FTE staff? (Please select all that

apply)

О Executive Team

О Sales/Marketing Team

О Field Support Staff (i.e. Systems Implementers)

О Support Staff (i.e. Human Resources professionals, Finance Team, Web Team)


О Don’t know

10. Did you scale back any IT projects or IT initiatives this past year because of any health IT


О Yes

О No

О Don’t Know

11. Did you place on hold any IT projects or IT initiatives this past year because of any health IT


О Yes

О No

О Don’t Know

12. Did you use the services of a IT staffing/executive search firm this past year?

О Yes

О No

О Don’t Know

40 | P a g e

13. Are you aware of the following HIMSS resources to support an organization’s health IT

workforce/staffing efforts?

Yes No

JobMine О О

CAHIMS certification О О

CPHIMS certification О О

Learning Center О О

Annual Conference О О

eMentoring О О

HIT Career Compensation Survey О О

HIMSS Scholarships О О

The TIGER Initiative О О

2017 himss leadership and workforce survey leadership... · findings from the 2017 himss leadership...

Documents