Download PDF
Yearb Med Inform 2011; 20(01): 105-111
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1638747
Working Group Contributions
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

Health Informatics 3.0 and other Increasingly Dispersed Technologies Require Even Greater Trust: Promoting Safe Evidence-based Health Informatics

Contribution of the IMIA Working Group on Technology Assessment & Quality Development in Health Informatics
M. Rigby
1   Keele University, School of Public Policy and Professional Practice, Keele, United Kingdom
,
E. Ammenwerth
2   UMIT, University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tyrol, Austria
,
J. Talmon
3   Maastricht University, School for Public Health and Primary Care: Caphri, Maastricht, The Netherlands
,
P. Nykänen
4   University of Tampere, Department of Computer Sciences, eHealth Research, Tampere, Finland
,
J. Brender
5   Aalborg University, Department of Health Science and Technology, and Virtual Center for Health Informatics, Aalborg, Denmark
,
N. de Keizer
6   IMIA Working Group on Technology Assessment & Quality Development in Health Informatics Chair, Academic Medical Center, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 March 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Background

Healthinformaticsisgenerallylesscommittedtoascientific evidence-basedapproach than any other area of health science, which is an unsound position. Introducing the new Web 3.0 paradigms into health IT applications can unleash a further great potential, able to integrate and distribute data from multiple sources. The counter sideisthatitmakestheuserandthepatientevermoredependentonthe

‘blackbox’ of the system, and the re-use of the data remote from the author and initial context. Thus anticipatory consideration of uses, and proactive analysis of evidenceof effects,are imperative,as only when a clinical technology can be proven to be trustworthy and safe should it be implementedwidely as is the case with other health technologies.

Objectives

Toargueforpromotingevidence-basedhealthinformatics assystemsbecomemorepowerfulandpro-activeyetmoredispersed andremote;andevaluationasthemeansofgeneratingthenecessaryscientific evidencebase.TopresentongoingIMIAandEFMIinitiativesinthisfield.

Methods

Critical overview of recent developments in health informatics evaluation, alongside the precedents of other health technologies, summarising current initiatives and the new challenges presented by Health Informatics 3.0.

Results

Web3.0should betaken asanopportunitytomovehealth informatics from being largely unaccountable to one of being an ethical andresponsiblescience-baseddomain.Recentandplannedactivities ofthe EFMIandIMIAworkinggroupshavesignificantlyprogressedkeyinitiatives.

Conclusions

Concurrent with the emergence of Web 3.0 as a means of new-generation diffuse health information systems comes an increasing need for an evidence-based culture in health informatics.

Keywords

Health informatics - evaluation - Web 3.0 - risk - business ethics
 

  • References

  • 1 Commission of the European Communities. COM 356: Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: e-Health making health care better for European citizens: An action plan for a European e-Health Area (COM (2004) 356, Brussels. 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 European Commission: ICT for Health & i2010 Transforming the European healthcare landscape – Towards a strategy for ICT for Health, June 2006. http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/ health/docs/publications/ictforhealth-and-i2010- f inal.pdf. Luxembourg: Off ice for Off icial Publications of the European Communities 2006
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 European Commission. Database of European eHealth priorities and strategies. http://www.ehealth-era.org/database/database.html (accessed 29 March 2011)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 United States Congress. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; United States Government Printing Office. Washington: DC; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Sittig DF, Classen DC. Safe electronic health record use requires a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework. JAMA 2010; Feb 3; 303 (05) 450-1.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kalra D. Health informatics 3.0.Yearb Med Inform. 2011; 8-14.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kulikowski C, Geissbuhler A. Towards Health Informatics 3.0. Editorial.Yearb Med Inform 2011; 6-7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Grémy F, Bonnin M. Evaluation of Automatic Health Information Systems – What and How?. In: van Gennip EMSJ, Talmon JL. editors. Assessment and Evaluation of Information Technologies in Medicine. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1995: 9-20.
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Nadkari PK, Miller RA. Service-oriented Architecture in Medical Software: Promises and Perils. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14: 244-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST. et al. Unexpected increased mortality alter implementation of a commercially sold computerized physicians order entry system. Pediatrics 2005; 116 (06) 1506-12.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ammenwerth E, Shaw NT. Bad health informatics can kill is evaluation the answer?. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44 (01) 1-3.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, Abaluck B, Localio AR, Kimmel SE, Strom BL. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 2005; Mar 9; 293 (10) 1197-203.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Eslami S, Abu-Hanna A, de Keizer NF, de Jonge E. Errors associated with applying decision support by suggesting default doses for aminoglycosides. Drug Saf 2006; 29 (09) 803-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Banta HD. Introduction. Minimally Invasive Therapy in five European Countries: Diffusion, Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness; Health Policy 1993; Jan; 23 (1-2): 1-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Banta HD, Vondeling H. Diffusion of Minimally Invasive Therapy in Europe; Health Policy. 1993 Jan; 23. (1-2): 125-33.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 European Union Guideline on Medical Devices MEDDEV. 2.7.1 Rev.3 December 2009
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rigby M. Health Informatics as a Tool to Improve Quality in Non-acute Care New Opportunities and a Matching Need for a New Evaluation Paradigm. Int J Med Inform 1999; 56: 141-150.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rigby M. Evaluation: 16 Powerful Reasons Why Not to Do It And 6 Over-Riding Imperatives. In: Patel V, Rogers R, Haux R. editors. Medinfo 2001: Proceedings of the 10th. World Congress on Medical Informatics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2001: 1198-202.
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Ammenwerth E, Brender J, Nykanen P, Prokosch HU, 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 Inform 2004; 73 (06) 479-91.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ham C, Hunter DJ, Robinson R. Evidence-based Policy. BMJ 1995; 310: 71.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lohr KN, Eleazer K, Mauskopf J. Health Policy Issues and Applications for Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Practice Guidelines. Health Policy 1998; Oct; 46 (01) 1-19.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Walshe K, Rundall TG. Evidence-based Management: From Theory to Practice in Health Care. The Milbank Quarterly 2001; 79: 429-57.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Gray JAM. Evidence-based Healthcare: How to make Health Policy and Management Decisions. 2nd ed.. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 24 www.amia.org/10x10 (accessed 4 January 2011)
    PubMed
  • 25 http://www.ibe.org.uk/ (accessed 4 January 2011)
    PubMed
  • 26 Beauchamp T, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th ed.. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Goodman KW, et al. Challenges in Ethics, Safety, Best Practices, and Oversight Regarding HIT Vendors, their Customers, and Patients: a Report of an AMIA Special Task Force (AMIA Board Position Paper);. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; Jan 1; 18 (01) 77-81.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Patrick J. A Study of a Health Enterprise Information System. School of Information Technologies, University of Sydney. Technical Report TR673 2011; 190.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Rigby M. Evaluation – the Cinderella Science of ICT in Health. In: Kulikowski C, Haux R. editors. IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2006. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2006: 114-20.
    Google Scholar
  • 30 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 (01) 44-56 Erratum in: Methods Inf Med 2005; 44(3): III..
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Talmon J, Ammenwerth E, Brender J, de Keizer N, Nykänen P, Rigby M. STARE-HI Statement on reporting of evaluation studies in Health Informatics. Int J Med Inform 2009; 78 (01) 1-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 de Keizer N, Talmon J, Ammenwerth E, Brender J, Rigby M, Nykänen P. Systematic prioritization of the STARE-HI reporting items to facilitate application to short conference papers on health informatics evaluation. Methods Inf Med. 2011 Mar 4; 50. (3); [Epub ahead of print]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kidholm K, Bowes A, Dyrehauge S, Granstrøm AEkeland, Flottorp SA, Kvistgaard LJensen, Duedal CPedersen, Rasmussen J. The MAST Manual. MAST-Model for assessment of telemedicine. http://www.epractice.eu/en/library/315610 (accessed 22 Nov. 2010)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Cusack CM, Byrne C, Hook JM, McGowan J, Poon EG, Zafar A. Health information technology evaluation toolkit: 2009 Update (Prepared for the AHRQ National Resource Center for Health Information Technology under Contract No. 290-04- 0016.) AHRQ publication No. 09-0083-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2009, www.ahrq.gov (accessed 15 Nov. 2010)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, Anandan C, Cresswell K. et al. 2011 The Impact of eHealth on the Quality and Safety of Health Care: A Systematic Overview. PLoS Med 08 (01) 2011; e1000387 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000387..
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Mantas J, Ammenwerth E, Demiris G, Hasman A, Haux R, Hersh W, Hovenga E, Lun KC, Marin H, Martin-Sanchez F, Wright G. Recommendations of the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) on Education in Biomedical and Health Informatics. <http://www.schattauer.de/en/magazine/subject-areas/journals-a-z/methods/contents/archive/issue/1053/manuscript/12538/show.htmlI> IMIA White Paper. Methods of Information in Medicine 2010; 49 (02) 1 16.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 European Computer Driving Licence Foundation. ECDL/ICDL Module 11; at. http://www.ecdl.org/programmes/index.jsp?p=108&n=764 (accessed 6 April 2011)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Rigby MJ, Hulm C, Detmer D, Buccollero L. Enabling the Safe and Effective Implementation of Health Informatics Systems – Validating and Rolling Out the ECDL/ICDL Health Supplement; in KA Kuhn, JR Warren, and T-Y Leong: MEDINFO 2007 Proceedings of the 12th World Congress on Health (Medical) Informatics: Building Sustainable Health Systems. 1347-51.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 bAmerican Medical Informatics Association. Training Health Care Professionals to Serve as Local Informatics Leaders and Champions, at. www.amia.org/10x10 (accessed 6 April 2011)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Technology Informatics Guiding Education Reform at. www.tigersummit.com (accessed 6 April 2011)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar