Subscribe to RSS
Categorizing Communication Errors in Integrated Hospital Information Systems
18 February 2009
17 January 2018 (online)
Objectives: Hospital information systems (HIS) are the hospital’s nervous system. The HIS are mostly grown over several years, dedicated to specific needs and comprise individual workarounds. Changes to such complex systems may cause a variety of different negative side-effects. In order to understand the nature of incorrect communication in integrated HIS, a concise structured categorization of common communication problems and their reasons is essential. The objective of this paper is to present such a categorization, its development and verification.
Methods: We used a combined approach for the development of the error categorization: We started with a qualitative content analysis on available literature in PubMed. In order to ensure the validity and completeness of the results, we chose the method of problem-centered expert interviews.
Results: The resulting categorization of communication problems is represented as a five-level hierarchy. It comprises 81 problems that are related to the electronic communication. Further, it contains in total 229 entries that are either the reasons of these problems or recommendation for avoiding the problems.
Conclusion: To our knowledge there is no similar summary that concisely summarizes common communication problems and also refers to their underlying reasons. Equivalent content is mostly published in experience reports that just concentrate on single aspects. We used the details of such references in order to compile our categorization – it thus can be regarded as an intersection of relevant experiences. The categorization can raise a basic awareness on potential problems and supports the understanding of the underlying reasons. An evaluation in a real environment must prove whether the content of the categorization is correct.
- 1 Winter A, Brigl B, Wendt T. Modeling hospital information systems. Part 1: The revised three-layer graph-based meta model 3LGM2. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (05) 544-551
- 2 Haux R, Winter A, Ammenwerth E, Brigl B. Strategic Information Management in Hospitals. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag; 2004
- 3 Haux R. Health information systems – past, present, future. Int J Med Inform 2006; 75 (3–4) 268-281.
- 4 Coiera E. When conversation is better than computation. JAMIA 2000; 7 (03) 277-286.
- 5 Brazhnik O, Jones JF. Anatomy of data integration. J Biomed Inform 2007; 40 (03) 252-269.
- 6 Giuse DA, Kuhn KA. Health information systems challenges: the Heidelberg conference and the future. Int J Med Inform 2003; 69 (2–3) 105-114.
- 7 Kun L. Interoperability: the cure for what ails us. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2007; 26 (01) 87-90.
- 8 Dwyer S. A personalized view of the history of PACS in the USA. In: Blaine G, Siegel E. editors. Proceedings of the SPIE: Medical Imaging 2000: PACS Design and Evaluation: Engineering and Clinical Issues; 2000; San Diego, CA, USA: 2000. pp 2-9.
- 9 ACR/NEMA.. DICOM Homepage. 2008 (cited Sep 2008). Available from: http://medical.nema.org
- 10 HL7.. Health Level 7. 2008 (cited Sep 2008). Available from: http://hl7.org
- 11 Gross-Fengels W, Miedeck C, Siemens P, Appel R, Muckner K, Finsterbusch J. et al. PACS: from project to reality. Report of experiences on full digitalisation of the radiology department of a major hospital. Radiologe 2002; 42 (02) 119 l124.
- 12 Matthews JW, Bosch WR. Explicit-VR transfer syntax limits the value multiplicity of DICOM data elements with decimal string (DS) value representation. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51 (05) L11-2.
- 13 Hammond KW, Helbig ST, Benson CC, BrathwaiteSketoe BM. Are electronic medical records trustworthy? Observations on copying, pasting and duplication. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003; pp 269-273.
- 14 Khorasani R. Medical management: expanding radiologists’ role using information technology to improve the quality of care. Semin Roentgenol 2003; 38 (03) 282-286.
- 15 Nissen-Meyer S, Holzknecht N, Wieser B, Francke M, Küttner B, Adelhard K. et al. Produktivitätsverbesserung durch klinikweite RIS und PACS: eine Fallstudie. Der Radiologe 2002; 42: 351-360.
- 16 HIMMS/RSNA.. IHE – changing the way healthcare connects. 2008 (cited Sep 2008). Available from: http://www.ihe.net
- 17 Mildenberger P, Wein B, Bursig HP, Eichelberg M. Current developments in DICOM and IHE. Radiologe 2005; 45 (08) 682-689.
- 18 Marlow SP, Mackenzie DA, Tomlinson JB. PC/VAX or standalone PC-based general purpose biological data collection system. Med Biol Eng Comput 1993; 31 (01) 22-30.
- 19 Sieving A, Billquist J, Smith R, Müller D. The PDP-11 FAQ. Technical report, Usenet, 2000 (cited Sep 2008). Available from: http://www.village.org pdp11/faq.html
- 20 Mayring P. Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken. 5th revised edition. Weinheim Beltz: PsychologieVerl.-Union; 2002
- 21 Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse – Grundlagen und Technik. 8th edition. Weinheim und Basel: UTB; 2003
- 22 Saboor S, Chimiak-Opoka J, Ammenwerth E. Supporting the Systematic Assessment of Clinical Processes: the MedFlow Method. Methods Inf Med 2007; 46 (05) 586-594.
- 23 Kotter E, Langer M. Integrating HIS-RIS-PACS: the Freiburg experience. Eur Radiol 1998; 8 (09) 1707-1718.
- 24 Mongkolwat P, Bhalodia P, Gehl JA, Channin DS. Validating DICOM content in a remote storage model. J Digit Imaging 2005; 18 (01) 37-41.
- 25 Lian JD, Lin IC, Wu HC. Case report: Taiwan’s experience in adopting IHE technical framework to integrate systems. Stud Health Technol Inform 2006; 122: 877.
- 26 Blado ME, Tomlinson A. Monitoring the accuracy of a PACS image database. J Digit Imaging 2002; 15 (01) 87-95.
- 27 Kuzmak PM, Dayhoff RE. Minimizing Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Modality Worklist patient/study selection errors. J Digit Imaging 2001; 14 2 Suppl 1 153-157.
- 28 König H, Klose KJ. Modelling of radiological services in the context of a hospital information system: does the DICOM standard meet the requirements?. Radiologe 1998; 38 (10) 872-882.
- 29 Spath PL. Using failure mode and effects analysis to improve patient safety. Aorn J 2003; 78 (01) 16-37. quiz 41-4.
- 30 Stalhandske E, DeRosier J, Patail B, Gosbee J. How to make the most of failure mode and effect analysis. Biomed Instrum Technol 2003; 37 (02) 96-102.
- 31 ISO.. ISO 13485:2003 – Medical devices – Quality management systems – Requirements for regulatory purposes. 2008 (cited Sep 2008). Available from: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/cata logue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber= 36786.