Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2009; 48(02): 203-210
DOI: 10.3414/ME9220
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

Categorizing Communication Errors in Integrated Hospital Information Systems

S. Saboor
1   Institute for Health Information Systems, UMIT, Hall in Tyrol, Austria
,
E. Ammenwerth
1   Institute for Health Information Systems, UMIT, Hall in Tyrol, Austria
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

18 February 2009

Publication Date:
17 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

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.

Keywords

Classification - HIS management - systems architecture - information system
 

  • References

  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Haux R, Winter A, Ammenwerth E, Brigl B. Strategic Information Management in Hospitals. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Haux R. Health information systems – past, present, future. Int J Med Inform 2006; 75 (3–4) 268-281.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Coiera E. When conversation is better than computation. JAMIA 2000; 7 (03) 277-286.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Brazhnik O, Jones JF. Anatomy of data integration. J Biomed Inform 2007; 40 (03) 252-269.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kun L. Interoperability: the cure for what ails us. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2007; 26 (01) 87-90.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    Google Scholar
  • 9 ACR/NEMA.. DICOM Homepage. 2008 (cited Sep 2008). Available from: http://medical.nema.org
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 HL7.. Health Level 7. 2008 (cited Sep 2008). Available from: http://hl7.org
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Khorasani R. Medical management: expanding radiologists’ role using information technology to improve the quality of care. Semin Roentgenol 2003; 38 (03) 282-286.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 HIMMS/RSNA.. IHE – changing the way healthcare connects. 2008 (cited Sep 2008). Available from: http://www.ihe.net
    PubMed
  • 17 Mildenberger P, Wein B, Bursig HP, Eichelberg M. Current developments in DICOM and IHE. Radiologe 2005; 45 (08) 682-689.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mayring P. Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken. 5th revised edition. Weinheim Beltz: PsychologieVerl.-Union; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse – Grundlagen und Technik. 8th edition. Weinheim und Basel: UTB; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 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.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kotter E, Langer M. Integrating HIS-RIS-PACS: the Freiburg experience. Eur Radiol 1998; 8 (09) 1707-1718.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Blado ME, Tomlinson A. Monitoring the accuracy of a PACS image database. J Digit Imaging 2002; 15 (01) 87-95.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Spath PL. Using failure mode and effects analysis to improve patient safety. Aorn J 2003; 78 (01) 16-37. quiz 41-4.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar