Literature DB >> 23616839

Confronting and resolving an ethical dilemma associated with a practice based evaluation using observational methodology of health information technology.

P S Sockolow1, H A Taylor.   

Abstract

SUMMARY: As the adoption of health information technology (HIT) has escalated, efforts to evaluate its uptake have increased. The evaluation of HIT often requires direct observation of health care practitioners interacting with the system. When in the field, the evaluator who is not a trained health care provider may observe suboptimal use of the technology. If evaluators have plans to share the results of the evaluation at the conclusion of the study, they face a decision point about whether to disclose interim results and the implications of doing so. To provide HIT evaluators with guidance about what issues to weigh when observing the implementation of HIT, this paper presents a study of an actual case and discusses the following considerations: (1) whether the evaluation of HIT is considered to be human subject research; (2) if the evaluation is human subject research, whether the Institutional Review Board will consider it exempt from review or subjected to expedited or full review; and (3) how interim disclosure to the clinic management impacts the research study. The recommendations to evaluators include use of a protocol for interim disclosures to patients, clinicians, and/or clinical management for both quality assurance initiatives and human subjects research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Testing and evaluation; clinical information systems; ethics

Year:  2010        PMID: 23616839      PMCID: PMC3631900          DOI: 10.4338/ACI-2010-02-CR-0014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Clin Inform        ISSN: 1869-0327            Impact factor:   2.342


  23 in total

Review 1.  The quality improvement-research divide and the need for external oversight.

Authors:  E Bellin; N N Dubler
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry.

Authors:  Emily M Campbell; Dean F Sittig; Joan S Ash; Kenneth P Guappone; Richard H Dykstra
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2006-06-23       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Harming through protection?

Authors:  Mary Ann Baily
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  The extent and importance of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry.

Authors:  Joan S Ash; Dean F Sittig; Eric G Poon; Kenneth Guappone; Emily Campbell; Richard H Dykstra
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2007-04-25       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Costs and benefits of health information technology: new trends from the literature.

Authors:  Caroline Lubick Goldzweig; Ali Towfigh; Margaret Maglione; Paul G Shekelle
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2009-01-27       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research: proposed criteria and potential implications.

Authors:  D Casarett; J H Karlawish; J Sugarman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-05-03       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care.

Authors:  Joanne Lynn; Mary Ann Baily; Melissa Bottrell; Bruce Jennings; Robert J Levine; Frank Davidoff; David Casarett; Janet Corrigan; Ellen Fox; Matthew K Wynia; George J Agich; Margaret O'Kane; Theodore Speroff; Paul Schyve; Paul Batalden; Sean Tunis; Nancy Berlinger; Linda Cronenwett; J Michael Fitzmaurice; Nancy Neveloff Dubler; Brent James
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-04-16       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors.

Authors:  Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  The unintended consequences of computerized provider order entry: findings from a mixed methods exploration.

Authors:  Joan S Ash; Dean F Sittig; Richard Dykstra; Emily Campbell; Kenneth Guappone
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2008-09-12       Impact factor: 4.046

10.  The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial.

Authors:  Rob McCarney; James Warner; Steve Iliffe; Robbert van Haselen; Mark Griffin; Peter Fisher
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2007-07-03       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.