Bad Health Informatics Can Kill – Is Evaluation the Answer?

Summary

Objective: Health care is entering the age of information society. It is evident that the use of modern information and communication technology (ICT) offers tremendous opportunities to improve health care. However, there are also hazards associated with ICT in health care. We want to present an overview of typical hazards associated with ICT in health care, and to discuss how ICT evaluation can be a solution.

Methods: We analyze examples of failures and problems associated with ICT in health care. This collection is also made available on a website.

Results and Conclusion: Systematic, continuous evaluation of quality and effects of ICT during the whole life cycle of ICT components seems to be one important approach to detect and prevent possible ICT hazards and failures, supporting a higher quality of patient care. However, empirical studies proving this assumption are needed.

Keywords

Health informatics - technology assessment - evaluation

• References

• 1 Haux R, Ammenwerth E, Herzog W, Knaup P. Health Care in the Information Society: A Prognosis for the Year 2013. Int J Med Inf 2003; 66: 3-12.
• 2 Rigby M, Roberts R, Thick M. editors Taking Health Telematics into the 21st Century. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2000
• 3 Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. editors To err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington: National Academy Press; 2000
• 4 Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington: National Academy Press; 2001
• 5 Leveson N. Safeware: system safety and computers. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley; 1995
• 6 Heeks R, Mundy D, Salazar A. Why Health Care Information Systems Succeed or Fail, Working Paper Series “Information Systems for Public Sector Management” no. 9/1999, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester, Manchester. 1999 http://idpm.man.ac.uk/publications/wp/igov/igov_wp09.shtml Last accessed: December 2004
• 7 Beynon-Davies P, Lloyd-Williams M. When health information systems fail. Top Health Inf Manage 1999; 20 (01) 66-79.
• 8 Southon G, Sauer C, Dampney K. Lessons from a failed information systems initiative: issues for complex organisations. Int J Med Inf 1999; 55 (01) 33-46.
• 9 Rigby M, Forsström J, Roberts R, Wyatt W. Verifying quality and safety in health informatics services. BMJ 2001; 323: 552-6.
• 10 Littlejohns P, Wyatt J, Garvican L. Evaluating computerised health information systems: hard lessons still to be learnt. BMJ 2003; 326: 860-3.
• 11 Anderson J, Goodman K. Evaluation: An Imperative to Do no Harm. In. Anderson J, Goodman K. editors. Ethics and Information Technology. New York: Springer; 2002
• 12 Ash J, Coiera E, Berg M. Some Unintended Consequences of Information Technology in Health Care: The Nature of Patient Care Information System- related Errors. JAMIA 2004; 11: 104-12.
• 13 Sauer C. Deciding the future for IS failures; not the choice you might think. In. Currie W, Galliers R. editors. Rethinking management information systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999
• 14 Ammenwerth E, Brender J, Nykänen P, Prokosch H-U. Rigby M, Talmon J. Visions and strategies to improve evaluation of health information systems – reflections and lessons based on the HISEVAL workshop in Innsbruck. Int J Med Inf 2004; 73 (06) 479-91.
• 15 Gell G. Side effects and responsibility of medical informatics. Int J Med Inf 2001; 64 2-3 69-81.
• 16 Kaplan B, Shaw N. Future Directions in Evaluation Research: People, Organizational, and Social Issues. Methods Inf Med 2004; 43: 215-31.
• 17 Bend J. Public Value and e-Health. London: Report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr), Southampton Street, London WC2E 7RA. www.ippr.org 2004