Cited by 269Electronic Health Records SystemsInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

Categorizing the unintended sociotechnical consequences of computerized provider order entry

Ash, Joan S., Sittig, Dean F., Dykstra, Richard H., Guappone, Kenneth, Carpenter, James D., Seshadri, Veena·2007·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Objective To describe the kinds of unintended consequences related to the implementation of computerized provider order entry (CPOE) in the outpatient setting.Design Ethnographic and interview data were collected by an interdisciplinary team over a 7 month period at four clinics.Measurements Instances of unintended consequences were categorized using an expanded Diffusion of Innovations theory framework.Results The framework was clarified and expanded. There are both desirable and undesirable unintended consequences, and they can be either direct or indirect, but there are also many consequences that are not clearly either desirable or undesirable or may even be both, depending on one's perspective. The undesirable consequences include error and security concerns and issues related to alerts, workflow, ergonomics, interpersonal relations, and reimplementations.Conclusion Consequences of implementing and reimplementing clinical systems are complex. The expanded Diffusion of Innovations theory framework is a useful tool for analyzing such consequences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.017

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Multiple organizations working together have found and recorded thousands of possible EHR safety defects.

    “Beyond these published reports, several organizations have collectively identified and documented thousands of potential EHR-related safety flaws.34”

    From EHR Safety: The Way Forward to Safe and Effective Systems (2008) · cites this paper as [34]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ash, J. S., Sittig, D. F., Dykstra, R. H., Guappone, K., Carpenter, J. D., & Seshadri, V.
Affiliations
Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Ash, Joan S.
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-06
Volume
76
Pages
S21-S27
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2004091813
Cited by
267
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 22
FWCI
33.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (LM06942)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
computerized physician order entry, unintended consequences, diffusion of innovations, outpatient clinics, clinical workflow, clinical alerts, medical errors, patient safety, human factors, interpersonal relationships, health information technology
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Oregon, Sociology, Medical, Interdisciplinary Communication, Medical Order Entry Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review