Organizational Evaluation of Medical Information Resources

  • Bonnie Kaplan
Part of the Computers and Medicine book series (C+M)

Abstract

Up to this point, the discussion of evaluation has focused on the information technology itself or on the individuals who use or are affected by the technology. Evaluation from a technology perspective considers hardware, software, telecommunications technology, and databases. Evaluation from a people perspective focuses on training, personnel, attitudes of personnel, ergonomics, and regulations affecting employment. It also is important to consider the nature of the work individuals do and the tasks they perform. Designers and evaluators increasingly are recognizing that compatibility of an information resource with work practices is an important concern, and some new methodologies are premised on the assumption that design must be based on work routines.1–10

Keywords

Information Resource Chief Executive Officer House Staff Evaluation Question Organizational Evaluation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fafchamps D, Young CY, Tang PC: Modelling work practices: input to the design of a physician’s workstation. Proc Symp Comput Applications Med Care 1991;15:788–792.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Graves W III, Nyce JM: Normative models and situated practice in medicine: towards more adequate system design and development. Inf Decis Technol 1992;18:143–149.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greenbaum J, Kyng M (eds): Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holtzblatt K, Bryer HR: Apprenticing with the customer. Commun ACM 1995;28(1):45–52.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaplan B: A model comprehensive evaluation plan for complex information systems: clinical imaging systems as an example. In: Brown A, Remenyi D (eds) Proceedings, Second European Conference on Information Technology Investment Evaluation. Birmingham, England: Operational Research Society, 1995:174–181.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaplan B: Fitting system design to work practice: using observation in evaluating a clinical imaging system. In: Ahuja MK, Galletta DF, Watson HJ (eds) Proceedings, First Americas Conference on Information Systems. Pittsburgh: Association for Information Systems, 1995:86–88.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaplan B: Information technology and three studies of clinical work. ACM SIGBIO Newslett 1995;15(2):2–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nyce JM. Graves W III: The construction of neurology: implications for hypermedia system development. Artif Intell Med 1990;2(2):315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nyce JM, Timpka T: Work, knowledge and argument in specialist consultations: incorporating tacit knowledge into system design and development. Med Biol Eng Comput 1993;31:HTA16–HTA19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Suchman L: Representations of work. Communications of the ACM 1995;38(9): 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson JG, Aydin CE: Overview: theoretical perspectives and methodologies for the evaluation of health care information systems. In: Anderson JG, Aydin CE, Jay SJ (eds) Evaluating Health Care Information Systems: Approaches and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994:5–29.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson JG, Aydin CE, Kaplan B: An analytical framework for measuring the effectiveness/impacts of computer-based patient record systems. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, HICSS-28, 1995:767-776.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Markus ML: Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Commun ACM 1983; 26(6):430–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leavitt HJ: Applying organizational change in industry: structral, technological and humanistic approaches. In: March JG (ed) Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaplan B: Models of change and information systems research. In: Nissen HE, Klein HK, Hirschheim R (eds) Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1991:593–611.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Havelock RG, Guskin A, Frohman M. Havelock M, Hill M, Huber J: Planning for Innovation through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge. Ann Arbor: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1971.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewi, K. Group decision and social change. In: Maccoby E, Newcomb TM, Hartley EL (eds) Readings in Social Psychology, 3rd Ed. New York: Henry Holt, 1958:197–211.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ginzberg MJ: Key recurrent issues in the MIS implementation process. MIS Quarterly 1981;5(2):47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kolb DA, Frohman AL: An organization development approach to consulting. Sloan Manag Rev 1970; 12(1):51–65.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schein EH: Management development as a process of influence. Indust Manag Rev 1961;2(2):59–77.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schein EH: Professional Education: Some New Directions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keen PGW: Information systems and organizational change. Commun ACM 1981;24(1):24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kling R, Iacono S: The control of information systems developments after implementation. Commun ACM 1984;27(12): 1218–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Etzioni A, Remp R: Technological Shortcuts to Social Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1973.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kling R: Social analyses of computing: theoretical perspectives in recent empirical research. Comput Surv 1980;12(1):61–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaplan B: Barriers to medical computing: history, diagnosis, and therapy for the medical computing “lag.” Proc Symp Comput Applications Med Care 1985;9:400–404.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wetherbe JC: Systems Analysis and Design, 3rd Ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1988.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kling R, Scacchi W: The web of computing: computer technology as social organization. Adv Comput 1982;21:2–90.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rogers EM: Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rogers EM: Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd Ed. New York: Free Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rogers EM, Shoemaker FF: Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: Free Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Anderson JG, Aydin CE, Jay SJ (eds): Evaluating Health Care Information Systems: Approaches and Applications, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Anderson JG, Jay SJ: Computers and clinical judgment: the role of physician networks. In: Anderson JG, Jay SJ (eds) Use and Impact of Computers in Clinical Medicine. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987:161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kaplan B: The influence of medical values and practices on medical computer applications. In: Anderson JG, Jay SJ (eds) Use and Impact of Computers in Clinical Medicine. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987:39–50.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kaplan B: The medical computing “lag”: perceptions of barriers to the application of computers to medicine. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1987;31:123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lundsgaarde HP, Fischer PJ, Steele DJ: Human Problems in Computerized Medicine, University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology, No. 13. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 1981.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fischer PJ, Stratmann WC, Lundesgaarde HP, Steele DJ: User reaction to PROMIS: issues related to acceptability of medical innovations. Proc Symp Comput Applications Med Care 1980;4:1722–1730. Reprinted in: Anderson JG, Jay SJ (eds) Use and Impact of Computers in Clinical Medicine. New York: Springer Verlag, 1987:284-301.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kaplan B: Development and acceptance of medical information systems: an historical overview. J Health Hum Resources Admin 1988;11(1):9–29.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schön DA: Beyond the Stable State. New York: Random House, 1971.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mohr LB: Explaining Organizational behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Markus ML, Robey D: Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research. Manag Science 1988;34(5):583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kaplan B, Maxwell JA: Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems. In: Anderson JG, Aydin CE, Jay SJ (eds) Evaluating Health Care Information Systems: Approaches and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994: 45–68.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Laudon KC, Laudon JP: Business Information Systems: A Problem Solving Approach. Chicago: Dryden Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kaplan B: Reducing barriers to physician data entry for computer-based patient records. Top Health Inf Manag 1994;15(1):24–34.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Aydin CE: Occupational adaptation to computerized medical information systems. J Health Soc Behav 1989;30:163–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Aydin CE. Computerized order entry in a large medical center. In: Anderson JG, Aydin CE, Jay SJ (eds) Evaluating Health Care Information Systems: Approaches and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994:260–275.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kaplan B: National Health Service reforms: opportunities for medical informatics research. In: Lun KC, et al. (eds) Medinfo 92: Seventh Conference on Medical Informatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1992:1166–1171.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Williams LS: Microchips versus stethoscopes: Calgary Hospital MDs face off over controversial computer system. Can Med Assoc J 1992;147(10):1534–1597.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Keisler S: The hidden messages in computer networks. Harvard Bus Rev 1986;64(1):46–60.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Senn JA: Information Systems in Management, 4th Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1990.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Flagle CD: Operations research with hospital computer systems. In: Collen MF (ed) Hospital Computer Systems. New York: Wiley, 1974:418–430.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dowling AF Jr: Do hospital staff interfere with computer system implementation? Health Care Manag Rev 1980;5(4):23–32.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kaplan B: Implementing and Evaluating Computer-Based Patient Records: The 4Cs of Success, Technical Report 94-001. Hamden, CT: Department of Computer Science, Quinnipiac College, 1994.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kaplan B: Impact of a clinical laboratory computer system: users’ perceptions. In: Salamon R, Blum BI, Jørgensen JJ: Medinfo 86: Fifth Congress on Medical Informatics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1986.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kaplan B: Initial impact of a clinical laboratory computer system: themes common to expectations and actualities. J Med Syst 1987;11(43):137–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kaplan B, Duchon D: Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in information systems research: a case study. MIS Quarterly 1988;124:571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kaplan B, Duchon D: A job orientation model of impact on work seven months post implementation. In: Barber B, Cao D, Quin D, Wagner G (eds) Medinfo 89: Sixth Conference on Medical Informatics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1989.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kaplan B, Duchon D: Combining methods in evaluating information systems: case study of a clinical laboratory information system. Symp Comput Applications Med Care 1989;13.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Dwyer SJ, Templeton AW, Martin NL, et al: The cost of managing digital diagnostic images. Radiology 1982;144:313–318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Crowe BI: Overview of some methodological problems in assessment of PACS. Int J Biomed Comput 1992;30:181–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Brewer J, Hunter A: Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. Sage Library of Social Research no. 175. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bryan S, Keen J, Buxton M, Weatherburn G: Evaluation of a hospital-wide PACS: costs and benefits of the Hammersmith PACS installation. In: SPIE Medical Imaging VI: PACS Design and Evaluation, 1654. 1992:573–576.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Keen J, Bryan S, Muris N, Weatherburn G, Buxton M: A model for the evaluation of PACS. In: Boehme JM, Rowberg AH, Wolfman NT (eds) Computer Applications to Assist Radiology, SCAR 94. Carlsbad, CA: Symposia Foundation, 1994:22–29.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Berg M: Formal tools and medical practices, getting computer-based decision techniques to work. In: Bowker GL, Gasser L, Star L, Turner B (eds) Bridging the Great Divide. Proceedings of an International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Paris: CNRS, 1992:47–64.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bonnie Kaplan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations