Cited by 71Electronic Health Records SystemsInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationKnowledge Management and Technology

Fluids or flows? Information and qualculation in medical practice

Moser, Ingunn, Law, John·2006·Information Technology & People

Abstract

Purpose: Seeks to explore the assumptions and limitations of current programmes for the creation of electronic patient records by comparing ICT programme statements with hospital uses of information. Design/methodology/approach: Compares qualitative data from medical ICT programmes statements with data from ethnographic studies of hospital decision making. Uses actor‐network theory to develop a performative definition of information as that which secures a decision or “qualculation”, whether in the form of calculation or judgement. Findings: Shows that decision making depends on a mix of formal and informal considerations that are, however, always restricted in scope and number. Shows that some of these are locally and organisationally contingent. Research limitations/implications: The ethnographic findings illustrate the character of information rather than offering data about the character of decisions in different clinical locations. Practical implications: Caution is needed in the face of claims about ICT programmes in health care. It is possible to anticipate neither all the uses of information nor what will count as information in advance. Originality/value: The paper develops a performative definition of information. This is whatever secures a decision in practice. Information thus reflects a situated process of simplification and bounding of relevancies. This suggests that information not only flows (which is assumed in ICT programme statements) but also is fluid, unpredictably changing its form and character. This claim is relevant both to the design and use of ICT in health care and to the theory of information.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/09593840610649961

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Algorithm journey maps might emphasize a specific perspective, amplifying existing power structures rather than allowing less-powerful stakeholders to have their experiences properly reflected.

    “Second, and relatedly, algorithm journey maps might emphasize a specific perspective, amplifying existing power structures rather than allowing less-powerful stakeholders to have their experiences properly reflected22.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moser, I., & Law, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
Venue
Information Technology & People
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2006-01-01
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
55-73
ISSN
0959-3845 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036533501
Cited by
71
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
9.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Information Technology and People (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Knowledge Management and Technology
Keywords
electronic health records, medical information, actor-network theory, health information technology, information theory, clinical judgment

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