Special Section: Assessing Information Technologies for Health: Health Technology Assessment

Summary

Objectives

To summarize current excellent research in the field of health technology assessment.

Methods

Synopsis of the articles selected for the IMIA Yearbook 2006.

Results

Five excellent articles representing the research in four different nations were selected for the IMIA Yearbook 2006 from three international peer reviewed journals.

Conclusions

The best paper selection for the Yearbook section ‘Assessing Information Technologies for Health’ presents papers evaluating the benefit and side-effects of information technology in various settings. They clearly indicate that benefit of IT in health care can be achieved when the systems are appropriately designed, implemented and operated. Besides the presented quantitative studies, also qualitative study designs are of value to find unintended effects of IT, or to better explain found effects. IT evaluation supports a reflective practice on how health informatics influences health care, enabling the emergence of an evidence-based health informatics.

Keywords

Medical Informatics - International Medical Informatics Association - Yearbook - evaluation - health technology assessment

• References

• 1 Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001
• 2 Ball M, Garets D, Handler T. Leveraging IT to Improve Patient Safety. In: Haux R, Kulikowski C. editors. IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2003. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2003: 153-8.
• 3 Haux R, Ammenwerth E, Herzog W, Knaup P. Health Care in the Information Society: A Prognosis for the Year 2013. Int J Med Inf 2003; 66: 3-12.
• 4 Ball M, Garets D, Handler T. Leveraging Information Technology Towards Enhancing Patient Care and a Culture of Safety in the U.S. Methods Inf Med 2003; 05: 503-8.
• 5 Ammenwerth E, Shaw N. Bad health informatics can kill - is evaluation the answer?. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 1-3.
• 6 Ammenwerth E, Brender J, Nykänen P, Prokosch H-U, Rigby M, Talmon J. Visions and strategies to improve evaluation of health information systems - reflections and lessons based on the HIS-EVAL workshop in Innsbruck. Int J Med Inf 2004; 73 (06) 479-91.
• 7 Gray JE, Safran C, Davis RB, Pompilio-Weitzner G, Stewart JE, Zaccagnini L. et al. Baby CareLink: using the internet and telemedicine to improve care for high-risk infants. Pediatrics 2000; 106 (06) 1318-24.
• 8 van Wijk MA, van der Lei J, Mosseveld M, Bohnen AM, van Bemmel JH. Assessment of decision support for blood test ordering in primary care. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134 (04) 274-81.
• 9 Bates D, Teich J, Lee J, Seger D, Kuperman G, Ma’Luf N. et al. The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999; 313-21.
• 10 Laerum H, Ellingsen G, Faxvaag A. Doctors’ use of electronic medical records systems in hospitals: cross sectional survey. BMJ 2001; 323 (7325): 1344-8.
• 11 Despont-Gros C, Landau R, Rutschmann O, Simon J, Lovis C. The digital pen and paper. Evaluation and acceptance of a new data acquisition device in clinical settings. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44 (03) 359-68.
• 12 Lee F, Teich J, Spurr C, Bates D. Implementation of Physician Order Entry: User Satisfaction and Self-reported Usage Patterns. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996; 03: 42-55.
• 13 Marasovic C, Kenney C, Elliott D, Sindhusake D. Attitudes of Australian nurses toward the implementation of a clinical information system. Comput Nurs 1997; 15 (02) 91-8.
• 14 Moehr J, Anglin C, Schaafsma J, Pantazi S, Anglin S, Grimm N. Video conferencing-based telehealth— its implications for health promotion and health care. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44 (02) 334-41.
• 15 Chertow GM, Lee J, Kuperman GJ, Burdick E, Horsky J, Seger DL. et al. Guided medication dosing for inpatients with renal insufficiency. JAMA 2001; 286 (22) 2839-44.
• 16 Ash J, Gorman P, Lavelle M, Lyman J, Fournier L. Investigating Physician Order Entry in the Field: Lessons Learned in a Multi-Center Study. In: Patel V, Rogers R, Haux R. editors. Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Medical Informatics (Medinfo 2001. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2001: 1107-11.
• 17 Bryan S, Weatherburn G, Buxton M, Watkins J, Keen J, Muris N. Evaluation of a hospital picture archiving and communication system. J Health Serv Res Policy 1999; 04 (04) 204-9.
• 18 Mair F, Whitten P. Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. BMJ 2000; 320 (7248): 1517-20.
• 19 Roine R, Ohinmaa A, Hailey D. Assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of the literature. CMAJ 2001; 165 (06) 765-71.
• 20 Ammenwerth E, de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care: Trends in evaluation research 1982 - 2002. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 44-56.
• 21 Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications - some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. Int J Med Inform 2001; 64: 39-56.
• 22 Heathfield H, Buchan I. Current evaluations of information technology in health care are often inadequate. BMJ 1996; 313 (7063): 1008.
• 23 Moehr JR. Evaluation: salvation or nemesis of medical informatics?. Comput Biol Med 2002; 32 (03) 113-25.
• 24 Kaplan B, Shaw N. Future Directions in Evaluation Research: People, Organizational, and Social Issues. Methods Inf Med 2004; 43 (03) 215-31.
• 25 Stoop A, Berg M. Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in patient care information system evaluation - guidance for the organizational decision maker. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (04) 458-62.