A Biomedical Informatics Perspective on Human Factors:

Summary

Objectives

to select and summarize excellent research published during 2011 in the study of human factors in bio-medical informatics.

Methods

we attempt to derive a synthetic overview of the activity and new trends in this field, from a wide selection of worldwide research papers published during 2011.

Results

We selected four papers. The first one presents an international effort aiming to design a guideline for good evaluation practice in health informatics (GEP-HI) [2]. The second reviews medical errors taxonomies from a human factor perspective [3]. The third one advocates the need to systematically perform a deep evaluation process after all healthcare information technologies project deployment [4]. The fourth one explores exit strategies performed by clinician using health record system and how/why we need to anticipate them [5].

Conclusions

This papers selection will provide our readers with valuable evidences on past and existing research in the specific field of human factors in healthcare informatics. It can also act as a foundation for stakeholders in the healthcare industry that emphasize the significance of human factors and ergonomics in designing healthcare information systems of the future.

Keywords

Medical informatics - International Medical Informatics Association - yearbook - human factors

 

• References

• 1 Meyer R. A Biomedical Informatics Perspective on Human Factors -How Human Factors Influence Information Technology Adoption. Yearb Med Inform 2011; 06 (01) 58-62.
• 2 Moehr JR. Evaluation of health information systems: beyond efficiency and effectiveness. Comput Biol Med 2002; 32 (03) 111-2.
• 3 Brender J. Handbook of Evaluation Methods for Health Informatics. New York: Academic Press; 2006
• 4 Ammenwerth E, Brender J, Nykänen P, Prokosch HU, Rigby M, Talmon J. Visions and strategies to improve evaluation of health information systems. Reflections and lessons based on the HIS-EVAL workshop in Innsbruck. Int J Med Inform 2004; 73: 479-91.
• 5 Commission of the European Communities. COM 356: Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: e-Health—making health care better for European citizens:An action plan for a European e-Health Area. Brussels. 2004
• 6 European Commission: ICT for Health & i2010 -Transforming the European Healthcare Landscape— Towards a Strategy for ICT for Health, June 2006, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg. 2006
• 7 United States Congress. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office; 2009
• 8 Sittig DF, Classen DC. Safe electronic health record use requires a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework. JAMA 2010; 303 (05) 450-1.
• 9 Ammenwerth E, Shaw N. Bad health informatics can kill - is evaluation the answer. Editorial. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 1-3.
• 10 Nykänen P, Brender J, Talmon J, de Keizer N, Rigby M, Beuscart-Zephir MC. et al. Guideline for good evaluation practice in health informatics (GEP-HI). Int J Med Inform 2011; 80: 815-27.
• 11 Taib IA, McIntosh AS, Caponecchia C, Baysari MT. A review of medical error taxonomies: A human factors perspective. Safety Science 2011; 49: 607-15.
• 12 Holden RJ, Brown RL, Alper SJ, Scanlon MC, Patel NR, Karsh BT. That’s nice, but what does IT do?. Int J Ind Ergon 2011; 41: 370-9.
• 13 Zheng K, Hanauer DA, Padman R, Johnson MP, Hussain AA, Ye W. et al. Handling anticipated exceptions in clinical care: investigating clinician use of ‘exit strategies’ in an electronic health records system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18: 883-9.
• 14 Veterans given wrong drug doses due to glitch, Health care at msnbc.com. http://www. msnbc.msn.com/id/28655104 (accessed 06.03.12)
• 15 Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST, Clark RSB, Watson RS, Nguyen TC. et al. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 2005; 116 (06) 1506-12.
• 16 Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S. Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79: 736-71.
• 17 de Vries EN, Ramrattan MA, Smorenburg MA, Gouma DJ, Boermeester MA. The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care 2008; 17: 216-23.
• 18 Christofferson K, Woods DD. How complex human–machine systems fail: putting “human error” in context. In: Karwowski W, Marraas WS. editors. The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1999: 585-600.
• 19 Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ 2000; 320: 768-70.
• 20 Carayon P, Schoofs AHundt, Karsh B, Gurses AP, Alvarado CJ, Smith M. et al. Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care 2006; 15: 50-8.
• 21 Karsh BT, Weinger MB, Abbott PA, Wears RL. Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17: 617-23.
• 22 Perry SJ, Wears RL, Cook RI. The role of automation in complex system failures. J Patient Saf 2005; 01: 56-61.
• 23 Declaration of Innsbruck - Results from the European Science Foundation sponsored Workshop on Systematic Evaluation of Health Information Systems (HIS-EVAL). April 4–6th, 2003 http:// iig.umit.at/dokumente/r16.pdf (accessed 04.06.12)