Evaluation of Radiology and Pathology Subsystems of Hospital Information Systems

Authors

1 Medical Informatics Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

2 Assistant Professor of Bioinformatics, Research Center for Modelling in Health, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

3 Research Center for Health Services Management, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

Abstract

Background & Aims: Compliance with standards of designing information systems leads to efficient
utilization and ease of use for consumers. In this study, the compliance of the radiology and pathology
subsystems of a hospital information system with ISO 9241 section 12 was assessed in selected hospitals
affiliated with Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Iran.
Methods: This applied research is a descriptive, cross-sectional study. In this study, the radiology and
pathology subsystems of hospital information systems were evaluated in 8 hospitals based on ISO 9241
section 12. Data was collected by researchers, during winter 2012, using ISO 9241/12 checklist, and then, it
was assessed by hospital information technology administrators. Data were analyzed in SPSS software using
descriptive statistics.
Results: The analysis of data showed that the compliance of the software with information organization was
74.6%, with graphic tools 100%, and with coding techniques 47.2%. The total compliance of the software
with the ISO 9241/12 was 73.9%.
Conclusion: According to this study, the design of widely used hospital information systems has fairly good
compliance with standards, but still suffers from some issues. Considering the role of accurate, valid, and
timely information in decision making, policymaking, and management of hospitals, it is necessary that
software developers follow standards when designing information systems

Keywords


  1. Doolan DF, Bates DW. Computerized physician order entry systems in hospitals: mandates and incentives. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002; 21(4): 180-8.
  2. Chin HL, Krall M. Implementation of a comprehensive computer-based patient record system in Kaiser Permanente's Northwest Region. MD Comput 1997; 14(1): 41-5.
  3. Geissbühler A, Miller RA. A new approach to the implementation of direct care-provider order entry. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp 1996; 689-93.
  4. Ash J, Gorman P, Lavelle M, Lyman J, Fournier L. Investigating physician order entry in the field: lessons learned in a multi-center study. Stud Health Technol Inform 2001; 84(Pt 2): 1107-11.
  5. Ahmad A, Teater P, Bentley TD, Kuehn L, Kumar RR, Thomas A, et al. Key attributes of a successful physician order entry system implementation in a multi-hospital environment. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002; 9(1): 16-24.
  6. Weir C, Lincoln M, Roscoe D, Turner C, Moreshead G. Dimensions associated with successful implementation of a hospital based integrated order entry system. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1994; 653-7.
  7. Bates DW, Gawande AA. Improving safety with information technology. N Engl J Med 2003; 348(25): 2526-34.
  8. Bates DW, Cohen M, Leape LL, Overhage JM, Shabot MM, Sheridan T. Reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001; 8(4): 299-308.
  9. Kaushal R, Shojania KG, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163(12): 1409-16.
  10. Banet GA, Jeffe DB, Williams JA, Asaro PV. Effects of implementing computerized practitioner order entry and nursing documentation on nursing workflow in an emergency department. J Healthc Inf Manag 2006; 20(2): 45-54.
  11. Horsky J, Kaufman DR, Oppenheim MI, Patel VL. A framework for analyzing the cognitive complexity of computer-assisted clinical ordering. J Biomed Inform 2003; 36(1-2): 4-22.
  12. Horsky J, Kuperman GJ, Patel VL. Comprehensive Analysis of a Medication Dosing Error Related to CPOE. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12(4): 377-82.
  13. Beuscart-Zephir MC, Pelayo S, Anceaux F, Meaux JJ, Degroisse M, Degoulet P. Impact of CPOE on doctor-nurse cooperation for the medication ordering and administration process. Int J Med Inform 2005; 74(7-8): 629-41.
  14. Khajouei R, de JD, Jaspers MW. Usability evaluation of a computerized physician order entry for medication ordering. Stud Health Technol Inform 2009; 150: 532-6.
  15. Khajouei R, Jaspers MW. The impact of CPOE medication systems' design aspects on usability, workflow and medication orders: a systematic review. Methods Inf Med 2010; 49(1): 3-19.
  16. Beuscart-Zephir MC, Brender J, Beuscart R, Menager-Depriester I. Cognitive evaluation: how to assess the usability of information technology in healthcare. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1997; 54(1-2): 19-28.
  17. Cimino JJ, Patel VL, Kushniruk AW. The patient clinical information system (PatCIS): technical solutions for and experience with giving patients access to their electronic medical records. Int J Med Inform 2002; 68(1-3): 113-27.
  18. International Organization for Standardization. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) -- Part 11: Guidance on usability [Online]. [cited 1998]; Available from: URL: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=16883
  19. Khajouei R, Wierenga PC, Hasman A, Jaspers MW. Clinicians satisfaction with CPOE ease of use and effect on clinicians' workflow, efficiency and medication safety. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80(5): 297-309.
  20. Khajouei R, Peek N, Wierenga PC, Kersten MJ, Jaspers MW. Effect of predefined order sets and usability problems on efficiency of computerized medication ordering. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79(10): 690-8.
  21. Lee F, Teich JM, Spurr CD, Bates DW. Implementation of physician order entry: user satisfaction and self-reported usage patterns. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996; 3(1): 42-55.
  22. M.A. Krall, Achieving clinician use and acceptance of the electronic medical record, Permanente J. 1998;2 : 48–51
  23. Love JS, Wright A, Simon SR, Jenter CA, Soran CS, Volk LA, et al. Are physicians' perceptions of healthcare quality and practice satisfaction affected by errors associated with electronic health record use? J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19(4): 610-4.
  24. International Organization for Standardization. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) -- Part 12: Presentation of information [Online]. [cited 1998]; Available from: URL: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=16884
  25. Alipour J, Hoseini Teshnizi S, Hayavi Haghighi MH, Feghhi Z, Sharifi R, kohkan A. Users view about hospital information system in children's hospital, Bandar Abbas, Iran. Hormozgan Med J 2010; 14(2): 140-7. [In Persian].
  26. Saeed bakhsh S, Sadoughi F, Ehteshami A, Kasai Esfahani M. Assessment of ability of user education in medical records module of selected HIS in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med Educ 2011; 5(10): 877-85. [In Persian].
  27. Safdari R, Dargahi H, Shahmoradi L, Farzaneh Nejad A. Comparing Four Softwares Based on ISO 9241 Part 10. J Med Syst 2012; 36(5): 2787-93.
  28. Ehteshami A, Sadoughi F, Saeedbakhsh S, Kasaei Isfahani M. Assessment of Medical Records Module of Health Information System According to ISO 9241-10. Acta Inform Med 2013; 21(1): 36-41.
  29. Hamborg K, Vehse B, Bludau HB. Questionnaire Based Usability Evaluation of Hospital Information Systems. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation 2004; 7(1): 21-30.
  30. Rohrig R, Beutefuhr H, Hartmann B, Niczko E, Quinzio B, Junger A, et al. Summative software evaluation of a therapeutic guideline assistance system for empiric antimicrobial therapy in ICU. J Clin Monit Comput 2007; 21(4): 203-10.