Cited by 193Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

Using FDA reports to inform a classification for health information technology safety problems

Open access
Magrabi, Farah, Ong, Mei-Sing, Runciman, William, Coiera, Enrico·2012·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To expand an emerging classification for problems with health information technology (HIT) using reports submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. DESIGN: HIT events submitted to MAUDE were retrieved using a standardized search strategy. Using an emerging classification with 32 categories of HIT problems, a subset of relevant events were iteratively analyzed to identify new categories. Two coders then independently classified the remaining events into one or more categories. Free-text descriptions were analyzed to identify the consequences of events. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive statistics by number of reported problems per category and by consequence; inter-rater reliability analysis using the κ statistic for the major categories and consequences. RESULTS: A search of 899 768 reports from January 2008 to July 2010 yielded 1100 reports about HIT. After removing duplicate and unrelated reports, 678 reports describing 436 events remained. The authors identified four new categories to describe problems with software functionality, system configuration, interface with devices, and network configuration; the authors' classification with 32 categories of HIT problems was expanded by the addition of these four categories. Examination of the 436 events revealed 712 problems, 96% were machine-related, and 4% were problems at the human-computer interface. Almost half (46%) of the events related to hazardous circumstances. Of the 46 events (11%) associated with patient harm, four deaths were linked to HIT problems (0.9% of 436 events). CONCLUSIONS: Only 0.1% of the MAUDE reports searched were related to HIT. Nevertheless, Food and Drug Administration reports did prove to be a useful new source of information about the nature of software problems and their safety implications with potential to inform strategies for safe design and implementation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000369

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A few studies have attempted to quantify and classify EHR-related safety concerns by mining patient safety incident reporting databases.

    “A few studies have attempted to quantify and classify EHR-related safety concerns by mining patient safety incident reporting databases.18 29–31”
  • Previous studies have largely used isolated event reports without benefit of an independent human factors and informatics investigation to analyze safety concerns in the EHR.

    “Previous studies have largely used isolated event reports without benefit of an independent human factors and informatics investigation to analyze safety concerns in the EHR.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Reason J. Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Magrabi, F., Ong, M.-S., Runciman, W., & Coiera, E.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Magrabi, Farah
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2012-01
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
45-53
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2241024151
Cited by
193
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 11
FWCI
23.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (630583, 568612)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
MAUDE database, system configuration, device interfaces, network configuration, patient harm, human-machine interaction, software safety
MeSH terms
Medical Informatics, Safety, Software, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Databases, Factual, Research Report

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