PDF herunterladen
Yearb Med Inform 2017; 26(01): 103-109
DOI: 10.15265/IY-2017-023
Section 3: Clinical Information Systems
Synopsis
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

Clinical Information Systems as the Backbone of a Complex Information Logistics Process: Findings from the Clinical Information Systems Perspective for 2016

W.O. Hackl   *
1   Institute of Medical Informatics, UMIT-University of Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
,
T. Ganslandt   *
2   Medical Center for Information and Communication Technology, Erlangen University Hospital, Erlangen, Germany
,
Section Editors for the IMIA Yearbook Section on Clinical Information Systems › Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

11. September 2017

Publikationsdatum:
11. September 2017 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Summary

Objective: To summarize recent research and to propose a selection of best papers published in 2016 in the field of Clinical Information Systems (CIS).

Method: The query used to retrieve the articles for the CIS section of the 2016 edition of the IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics was reused. It again aimed at identifying relevant publications in the field of CIS from PubMed and Web of Science and comprised search terms from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) catalog as well as additional free text search terms. The retrieved articles were categorized in a multi-pass review carried out by the two section editors. The final selection of candidate papers was then peer-reviewed by Yearbook editors and external reviewers. Based on the review results, the best papers were then chosen at the selection meeting with the IMIA Yearbook editorial board. Text mining, term co-occurrence mapping, and topic modelling techniques were used to get an overview on the content of the retrieved articles.

Results: The query was carried out in mid-January 2017, yielding a consolidated result set of 2,190 articles published in 921 different journals. Out of them, 14 papers were nominated as candidate best papers and three of them were finally selected as the best papers of the CIS field. The content analysis of the articles revealed the broad spectrum of topics covered by CIS research.

Conclusions: The CIS field is multi-dimensional and complex. It is hard to draw a well-defined outline between CIS and other domains or other sections of the IMIA Yearbook. The trends observed in the previous years are progressing. Clinical information systems are more than just sociotechnical systems for data collection, processing, exchange, presentation, and archiving. They are the backbone of a complex, trans-institutional information logistics process.

Keywords

Medical informatics - International Medical Informatics Association - Yearbook - clinical information systems

* Equal Contribution


 

  • References

  • 1 Lamy JB, Séroussi B, Griffon N, Kerdelhué G, Jaulent MC, Bouaud J. Toward a formalization of the process to select IMIA Yearbook best papers. Methods Inf Med 2015; 54 (02) 135-44.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Cresswell KM, Mozaffar H, Lee L, Williams R, Sheikh A. Workarounds to hospital electronic prescribing systems: a qualitative study in English hospitals. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 (April):bmjqs-2015-005149.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Hravnak M, Chen L, Dubrawski A, Bose E, Clermont G, Pinsky MR. Real alerts and artifact classification in archived multi-signal vital sign monitoring data: implications for mining big data. J Clin Monit Comput 2016; 30 (06) 875-88.
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Hackl WO, Ganslandt T. New Problems - New Solutions : A Never Ending Story Findings from the Clinical Information Systems Perspective for 2015 Findings and Trends : Clinical. Yearb Med Inform 2016; 146-51.
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Waltman L, van Eck NJ, Noyons ECM. A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. J Informetr [Internet] 2010; [cited 2017 May 26]; 04 (04) 629-35 Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157710000660.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010; 84 (02) 523-38.
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Sievert C, Shirley K. LDAvis: A method for visualizing and interpreting topics. Proc Work Interact Lang Learn Vis Interfaces [Internet]. 2014: 63-70 Available from: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W14/W14-3110.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Chuang J, Manning CD, Heer J. Termite. Proc Int Work Conf Adv Vis Interfaces - AVI’12 [Internet]. 2012: 74 Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2254556.2254572.
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Anderson AE, Kerr WT, Thames A, Li T, Xiao J, Cohen MS. Electronic health record phenotyping improves detection and screening of type 2 diabetes in the general United States population: A cross-sectional, unselected, retrospective study. J Biomed Inform 2016; 60: 162-8.
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Badgeley MA, Shameer K, Glicksberg BS, Tomlinson MS, Levin MA, McCormick PJ. et al. EHDViz: clinical dashboard development using open-source technologies. BMJ Open 2016; 06 (03) e010579.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Hadji B, Martin G, Dupuis I, Campoy E, Degoulet P. 14 Years longitudinal evaluation of clinical information systems acceptance: The HEGP case. Int J Med Inform 2016; 86: 20-9.
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Moen H, Peltonen LM, Heimonen J, Airola A, Pahikkala T, Salakoski T. et al. Comparison of automatic summarisation methods for clinical free text notes. Artif Intell Med 2016; 67: 25-37.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Hosseini M, Meade J, Schnitzius J, Dixon BE. Consolidating CCDs from multiple data sources: A modular approach. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (02) 317-23.
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Bazemore AW, Cottrell EK, Gold R, Hughes LS, Phillips RL, Angier H. et al. “Community vital signs”: Incorporating geocoded social determinants into electronic records to promote patient and population health. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (02) 407-12.
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Johnson SG, Speedie S, Simon G, Kumar V, Westra BL, Johnson SG. Application of an Ontology for Characterizing Data Quality for a Secondary Use of EHR Data. Appl Clin Inf0rm 2016; 07 (07) 69-88.
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Jamieson T, Ailon J, Chien V, Mourad O. An electronic documentation system improves the quality of admission notes: A randomized trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (01) 123-9.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Attaallah AF, Elzamzamy OM, Phelps AL, Ranganthan P, Vallejo MC. Increasing operating room efficiency through electronic medical record analysis. J Perioper Pract 2016; 26 (05) 106-13.
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Demski H, Garde S, Hildebrand C. Open data models for smart health interconnected applications: the example of openEHR. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016; 16 (01) 137.
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Mandel JC, Kreda DA, Mandl KD, Kohane IS, Ramoni RB. SMART on FHIR: A standards-based, interoperable apps platform for electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (05) 899-908.
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Carberry KE, Landman Z, Xie M, Feeley T, Henderson J, Fraser C. Incorporating longitudinal pediatric patient-centered outcome measurement into the clinical workflow using a commercial electronic health record: A step toward increasing value for the patient. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (01) 88-93.
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Wilcox L, Woollen J, Prey J, Restaino S, Bakken S, Feiner S. et al. Interactive tools for inpatient medication tracking: A multi-phase study with cardiothoracic surgery patients. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (01) 144-58.
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Stites M, Pianykh OS. How secure is your radiology department? Mapping digital radiology adoption and security worldwide. Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206 (04) 797-804.
    Google Scholar