The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 50 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: A recent Institute of Medicine report called for attention to safety issues related to electronic health records (EHRs). We analyzed EHR-related safety concerns reported within a large, integrated healthcare system. METHODS: The Informatics Patient Safety Office of the Veterans Health Administration (VA) maintains a non-punitive, voluntary reporting system to collect and investigate EHR-related safety concerns (ie, adverse events, potential events, and near misses). We analyzed completed investigations using an eight-dimension sociotechnical conceptual model that accounted for both technical and non-technical dimensions of safety. Using the framework analysis approach to qualitative data, we identified emergent and recurring safety concerns common to multiple reports. RESULTS: We extracted 100 consecutive, unique, closed investigations between August 2009 and May 2013 from 344 reported incidents. Seventy-four involved unsafe technology and 25 involved unsafe use of technology. A majority (70%) involved two or more model dimensions. Most often, non-technical dimensions such as workflow, policies, and personnel interacted in a complex fashion with technical dimensions such as software/hardware, content, and user interface to produce safety concerns. Most (94%) safety concerns related to either unmet data-display needs in the EHR (ie, displayed information available to the end user failed to reduce uncertainty or led to increased potential for patient harm), software upgrades or modifications, data transmission between components of the EHR, or 'hidden dependencies' within the EHR. DISCUSSION: EHR-related safety concerns involving both unsafe technology and unsafe use of technology persist long after 'go-live' and despite the sophisticated EHR infrastructure represented in our data source. Currently, few healthcare institutions have reporting and analysis capabilities similar to the VA. CONCLUSIONS: Because EHR-related safety concerns have complex sociotechnical origins, institutions with long-standing as well as recent EHR implementations should build a robust infrastructure to monitor and learn from them.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Analysis of 100 closed VA investigations of EHR-related safety concerns found that most involved unsafe technology and complex interactions across sociotechnical dimensions. Four recurring concern types accounted for 94% of incidents, showing that EHR safety concerns persist long after go-live even in a mature EHR system.
Key findings
- Of 100 consecutive, unique, closed investigations from August 2009 to May 2013, 74 involved unsafe technology (phase 1), 25 involved unsafe use of technology (phase 2), and 1 involved lack of monitoring (phase 3); 70% involved two or more sociotechnical model dimensions.
- Four concern types accounted for 94% of incidents: unmet display needs (n=36), software modifications/upgrades (n=24), system–system interface failures (n=17), and hidden dependencies in distributed systems (n=17).
- The most commonly involved sociotechnical dimensions were hardware/software (76), clinical content (38), workflow/communication (35), human–computer interface (29), and people (20).
- Incidents came from 55 unique VA facilities; IPS safety scores were low for 48 investigations, intermediate for 38, and high for 14.
Methods
- Retrospective qualitative analysis of completed EHR-related safety investigations from the Veterans Health Administration Informatics Patient Safety Office, using 100 consecutive unique closed investigations extracted from 344 reported incidents.
- Used framework analysis guided by Sittig and Singh’s eight-dimension sociotechnical model and three EHR safety phases; two authors independently indexed concerns, resolving discrepancies by consensus.
- Coded narrative investigation reports in Atlas.ti V.6.2 and arranged data in Microsoft Excel; no inter-rater reliability was reported because the aim was descriptive.
Limitations
- The paper states all incidents involved the same EHR within a single, albeit very large, healthcare system; findings may not generalize to institutions with different organizational characteristics, EHR infrastructure, or reporting mechanisms.
- The paper states the data ranged from unsafe conditions to patient harm, did not analyze additional patient outcome data, and that reporting captures fewer than 10% of medical errors, so prevalence rates cannot be calculated.
- The paper notes self-reported data may be limited by recall bias or reporter knowledge; evident from the text, the retrospective voluntary reporting system and exclusion of duplicate or comingled-record concerns may underrepresent the full universe of EHR-related safety concerns.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
36 Own result · 18 Not checked yet · 15 Own interpretation · 11 Own method · 7 No basis given · 1 Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In addition, conceptual frameworks or models have been developed to incorporate the breadth of technical and non-technical factors into the analysis of EHR safety and effectiveness.21 25 27 32 33”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Background and significance
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [21] Meeks DW Takian A Sittig DF . Exploring the sociotechnical intersection of patient safety and electronic health record implementation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014;21(e1) e28 34. source
The Background (p. 1) describes an eight-dimensional sociotechnical model for studying HIT safety and effectiveness, with domains spanning technology, people, workflow, and organizational factors. The Abstract (p. 1) says the paper applies that model and a three-phase patient-safety model to EHR implementation and use. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites [25] source
The Introduction describes the paper’s ISTA framework as specifying relationships among health IT, workflows, clinicians, and organizations. The Discussion says the model also considers existing social systems, technologies, and physical environments, and links awareness of these interactions to improving healthcare safety, quality, and efficiency. This supports the claim that such frameworks incorporate technical and non-technical factors in assessing EHRs, a form of health IT. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [27] source
The SEIPS Model of Work System and Patient Safety describes a framework linking people, tasks, technologies, the physical environment, and organizational conditions to safety outcomes. Table 2 explicitly includes electronic health records among the technologies the model considers, and the intervention-research section says the model can guide assessment of technological and non-technological factors and measures of success. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These incidents also spanned both phase 1 (11 incidents) and phase 2 (6 incidents) of EHR safety.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concern of hidden dependencies in distributed systems
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across the 36 concerns within this concern type, the contributory dimensions were hardware and software (22 incidents), human–computer interface (22 incidents), workflow and communication (10 incidents), clinical content (9 incidents), people (9 incidents), organizational policies and procedures (2 incidents), and system measurement and monitoring (1 incident).”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to unmet data display needs in the EHR
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One-quarter were classified as phase 2 (ie, unsafe EHR use) and most commonly involved the dimensions of people, clinical content, workflow and communication, and human–computer interface.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, a pharmacist made a data entry error while approving the order for a larger-than-usual amount of diuretic.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to unmet data display needs in the EHR
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All four types of safety concerns affected, or had the potential to affect, multiple patients, although we did not further analyze outcome data except as noted below.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sociotechnical dimensions of phase 1 concerns most commonly involved hardware and software, workflow and communication, and clinical content.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The over-ride released the incorrect dose for administration by nursing staff.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to unmet data display needs in the EHR
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Owing to diminished user confidence in the warning's reliability, the warning was over-ridden.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to unmet data display needs in the EHR
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most (22 of 36) of these concerns were classified as phase 1 issues, followed by 13 phase 2, and one phase 3.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to unmet data display needs in the EHR
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 26
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the reports documented a variety of EHR-related safety incidents, four broad types of safety concerns were prominent: unmet data display needs within the EHR; problems with software modifications or upgrades; concerns related to system–system interfaces; and hidden dependencies within the EHR.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since these printers were installed and configured before recruitment of the current staff, the configuration error was not immediately recognized.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to both intended and unintended software modifications
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Another concern involved ‘legacy’ software (ie, an older system that has not evolved despite newer technologies50) that needed an upgrade or maintenance, but support staff did not have sufficient knowledge of these systems.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to both intended and unintended software modifications
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [50] Brodie ML Stonebraker M . Migrating legacy systems: gateways, interfaces & the incremental approach. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1995.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The selected incidents were reported from 55 unique VA facilities.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We classified these concerns into four types: unmet display needs in the EHR, safety concerns with software modifications or upgrades, concerns related to data transmission at system–system interfaces, and concerns of ‘hidden dependencies’ in distributed systems (ie, when one EHR component unexpectedly or unknowingly is affected by the state or condition of another).”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A majority (70%) involved two or more model dimensions.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“Incidents frequently reflected occurrence of more than one sociotechnical dimension: 40 incidents were classified with two sociotechnical dimensions, 23 incidents had three, and seven involved four dimensions.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Incidents in this category were also noted to be largely dependent on multiple interactions between these dimensions, and only one incident was coded with a single dimension.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concern of hidden dependencies in distributed systems
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Patient context-related concerns were caused by network failures, conflicts created by non-EHR software, and EHR upgrades that were not compliant with context protocols.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to system–system interfaces
plaindirectn = 17- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This concern type was most often associated with phase 1 EHR safety (21 incidents). Three concerns were classified as phase 2, and none were phase 3.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to both intended and unintended software modifications
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As highlighted in this example, the system–system interface concern involved interactions from multiple sociotechnical dimensions: hardware and software (17 incidents), workflow (6 incidents), and content (5 incidents).”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to system–system interfaces
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The concerns of hidden dependencies primarily involved the dimensions of hardware and software (14 of 17 incidents), workflow (14 incidents), clinical content (9 incidents), and people (5 incidents).”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concern of hidden dependencies in distributed systems
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although a dose error warning appeared on order entry, this particular warning was known to have a high false positive rate.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to unmet data display needs in the EHR
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the IPS-assessed safety scores, 48 investigations were scored low, 38 intermediate, and 14 were scored high.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The nurse, unaware of the discrepancy between the prescribed amount and the amount approved by the pharmacist, administered the larger dose.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to unmet data display needs in the EHR
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For instance, we previously developed a sociotechnical model that proposes eight interdependent dimensions that are essential to understand EHR-related safety (table 1; Sittig and Singh model).24 34”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Background and significance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The model accounts for the complexities of technology, its users, the involved workflow, and the larger external or organizational policies and context in assessment of EHR-related safety concerns.35 36”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Background and significance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Investments in health information technology (HIT) can enhance the safety and efficiency of patient care and enable knowledge discovery.1”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Background and significance
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the quality chasm a new health system for the 21st century. The National Academy Press, 2001.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Members of our multidisciplinary project team, whose areas of expertise included clinical medicine, patient safety, informatics, human factors, and information technology, provided guidance on the content of the themes.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Methods > Data analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As compared with system–system interfaces, hidden dependencies are unknown, and therefore potential points of failure and possible safety concerns may not be readily identified.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concern of hidden dependencies in distributed systems
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This example demonstrates how a complex interaction of a technical dimension with non-technical dimensions can potentially develop into a safety concern.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to both intended and unintended software modifications
boostedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result of this poor fit, the displayed information available to the end user failed to reduce uncertainty or led to increased potential for patient harm.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Results > Concerns related to unmet data display needs in the EHR
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the rich nature of the qualitative data, we believed this number was both valuable and feasible.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Methods > Data collection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We do not report inter-rater reliability because the aim of the study was to describe the nature and context of common EHR-related safety concerns, not solely classification according to the sociotechnical models.47 49”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Methods > Data analysis
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, a completed investigation provides additional contextual details pertinent to the incident under study as compared with traditional event reports.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Methods > Design and setting
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two coding authors (ie, a physician with informatics training and a human factors engineer) independently indexed each safety concern after reviewing the results of the IPS investigation. Discrepancies in coding were then resolved by consensus.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Methods > Data analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although these are known safety concerns,43 they were excluded because they are not routinely analyzed by IPS and are handled primarily by a separate office in the VA.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Methods > Data collection
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [43] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, two authors (DWM and MWS) independently reviewed and summarized the investigation reports to become familiar with the data, but at this secondary stage of analysis, we made no further effort to replicate the safety concern or investigation, determine additional causes, or offer additional solutions.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Methods > Data analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite capturing a low percentage of errors, we were able to gain insight about non-technical aspects of EHR-related safety concerns that may not be routinely considered in technology-focused investigations.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, our findings may not represent all types of EHR-related safety concerns and might not be generalizable to other institutions with different organizational characteristics, EHR infrastructure, or patient safety reporting mechanisms.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings underscore the importance of continuing the process of detecting and addressing safety concerns long after EHR implementation and ‘go-live’ has occurred.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the analysis of unsafe conditions or near misses is useful to illustrate concerns in EHR-enabled care, we acknowledge that their circumstances or implications may be different from adverse events that result in patient harm.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In general, fewer than 10% of medical errors are captured through reporting, and such data do not allow us to calculate prevalence rates.56 59 60”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Discussion
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data used for our analysis were composed of safety concerns that ranged from unsafe conditions to patient harm.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All four emergent safety concerns affected, or had the potential to affect, multiple patients, but we did not analyze additional data on patient outcomes as a result of these concerns.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Additional strengths of our study include the nationwide distribution of our sample of EHR-related safety incidents and the relatively sophisticated implementation and use of the EHR across the VA healthcare system.39”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [39] Spetz J Burgess JF Phibbs CS . What determines successful implementation of inpatient information technology systems? Am J Manag Care 2012;18:157–62.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As an early adopter of EHRs, the VA has evolved into a ‘learning system’ that dedicates resources to investigating safety concerns and making EHR-related safety improvements decades after first launch.42”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] Taylor L Wood SD Chapman R . Analysis and Mitigation of Reported Informatics Patient Safety Adverse Events at the Veterans Health Administration. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2012. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the sample size is smaller than that of some other studies, the case descriptions were rich (ie, 2–4 single-spaced pages), spanned a period of 3 years, and represented a continuum of care from home-based primary care to large, urban medical centers.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study suggests that technology-based solutions alone will only partially mitigate concerns and that interventions to improve EHR-related safety should encompass the people, organizations, systems, and policies that influence how EHRs are used.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Safety concerns we identified had complex sociotechnical origins and would need multifaceted strategies for improvement.”
§ An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Currently, few healthcare institutions have reporting and analysis capabilities similar to the VA.
“Currently, few healthcare institutions have reporting and analysis capabilities similar to the VA.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Few healthcare systems have robust reporting and analytic infrastructure similar to the VA's Informatics Patient Safety Office.
“However, few healthcare systems have robust reporting and analytic infrastructure similar to the VA's IPS.”
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?
In the citing paper
“This study has also added to an emerging but limited UK evidence base that has reported potential negative impacts of electronic records on the doctor-patient relationship [35] and patient safety in secondary care [36–38].”
From Exploring the implementation of an electronic record into a maternity unit: a qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory (2017) · cites this paper as [36]
Citations
Cites
Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-117 · Cited by 10,865
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
Baker, A. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7322.1192 · Cited by 10,779
Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data
Pope, C. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114 · Cited by 8,131
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods
Given, L. (2008) · doi:10.4135/9781412963909 · Cited by 6,134
Qualitative methods for health research
Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-0901 · Cited by 4,612
Qualitative Research in Health Care
(2006) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470750841 · Cited by 2,747
Role of Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems in Facilitating Medication Errors
Koppel, R. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1197 · Cited by 2,126
Leavitt, M. (2001) · PubMed · Cited by 1,835
Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model
Carayon, P., Schoofs Hundt, A., Karsh, B.-T., Gurses, A. P., Alvarado, C. J., Smith, M., & Flatley Brennan, P. (2006) · Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.015842 · Cited by 1,795
Self-citationAsh, J. S. (2003) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1471 · Cited by 1,789
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Institute of Medicine (IOM). Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Safer Care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 209
Fischer, S., & Schwappach, D. L. B. (2022) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000001009 · Cited by 10
A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW ON SAFE HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY USE BEHAVIOUR
Salahuddin, L. B., Ismail, Z., & Abidin, W. Z. (2016) · Jurnal Teknologi · doi:10.11113/jt.v78.8225 · Cited by 9
de Vreede, M. A. V., de Clifford, J., & McGrath, A. M. (2017) · Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research · doi:10.1002/jppr.1327 · Cited by 9
Park, H. (2016) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.15265/iy-2016-028 · Cited by 7
Are informed policies in place to promote safe and usable EHRs? A cross-industry comparison
Savage, E. L., Fairbanks, R. J., & Ratwani, R. M. (2017) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocw185 · Cited by 9
Development of safety and usability guideline for clinical information system
Lee, Y., Bahn, S., Shin, G. W., et al. (2021) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000025276 · Cited by 8
Weinschreider, J., Sisk, H., & Jungquist, C. R. (2022) · The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing · doi:10.3928/00220124-20221006-08 · Cited by 8
Campione, J. R., & Liu, H. K. (2024) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11322-3 · Cited by 8
Chen, Y., Aljafari, R., Xiao, B. S., & Venkatesh, V. (2021) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocab034 · Cited by 8
Fadahunsi, K. P., Wark, P. A., Mastellos, N., Gallagher, J., Majeed, A., & Car, J. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057430 · Cited by 10
FIN-TIERA: A Tool for Assessing Technology Induced Errors
Pajunen, T., Lehtonen, L., Saranto, K., & Palojoki, S. (2016) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.3414/me16-01-0097 · Cited by 8
Why health information technology safety problems remain invisible
Jabin, M. S. R. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1785141 · Cited by 8
Almerares, A., Luna, D. R., Marcelo, A., Househ, M., Brieux, H. F. M., & Otero, C. (2016) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1641611 · Cited by 7
A new methodological framework for hazard detection models in health information technology systems
Omitaomu, O. A., Klasky, H. B., Olama, M. M., Özmen, Ö., Pullum, L., Thakur, A. M., Kuruganti, T. P., Scott, J. M., Laurio, A., Drews, F. A., et al. (2021) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2021.103937 · Cited by 6
Self-citationFindings from the Clinical Information Systems Perspective
Ganslandt, T., Hackl, W. O., & Systems, S. E. F. T. I. Y. S. O. C. I. (2015) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.15265/iy-2015-037 · Cited by 6
A framework for synthesis of safety justification for digitally enabled healthcare services
Despotou, G., Ryan, M., Arvanitis, T. N., et al. (2017) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/2055207617704271 · Cited by 6
Safety Use of Hospital Information Systems: A Preliminary Investigation
Salahuddin, L. B., & Ismail, Z. (2015) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21009-4_52 · Cited by 5
Iqbal, A. R., Parau, C. A., Kazi, S., Adams, K., La, L., Hettinger, A. Z., & Ratwani, R. M. (2021) · The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety · doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2021.09.004 · Cited by 5
Success factors for evidence-based healthcare practice adoption
Motsi, L., & Chimbo, B. (2023) · South African journal of information management · doi:10.4102/sajim.v25i1.1622 · Cited by 4
Labkoff, S. E., & Sittig, D. F. (2017) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.4338/aci-2017-02-ie-0032 · Cited by 6
Self-citationMcGrath, S. P., Wells, E. E., McGovern, K. M., Perreard, I. M., Stewart, K., McGrath, D., & Blike, G. T. (2019) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s1474-823120190000018006 · Cited by 5
Automated thematic analysis of health information technology (HIT) related incident reports
Li, Y., Shyr, C., Borycki, E. M., Kushniruk, A. W., & |, |. (2021) · Knowledge Management & E-Learning An International Journal · doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2021.13.022 · Cited by 6
Johnson, K. W., Freitas, J. K. D., Glicksberg, B. S., Bobe, J. R., & Dudley, J. T. (2018) · Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing (PSB) · doi:10.1142/9789813279827_0038 · Cited by 5
Advanced Informatics Competencies of Nurses at Sutter Maternity and Surgery
Liston, J. (2019) · doi:10.31979/etd.jfjm-8kr7 · Cited by 5
Cho, D., Lee, Y. R., Lee, W. J., Lee, E. S., & Lee, J. (2021) · Quality Improvement in Health Care · doi:10.14371/qih.2021.27.2.57 · Cited by 6
Classification of Health Information Technology Safety Events in a Pediatric Tertiary Care Hospital
Khan, A., Karavite, D., Muthu, N., Shelov, E. D., Nawab, U. S., Desai, B. R., & Luo, B. T. (2023) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000001119 · Cited by 5
Barriers to scaling up participatory design interventions in health IT
Balka, E., Peddie, D. J., Small, S. S., Ackerley, C. R., Trimble, J., & Hohl, C. M. (2018) · Participatory Design Conference · doi:10.1145/3210604.3210612 · Cited by 4
Unpacking the complexities of health record misuse: insights from Australian health services
Pool, J., Akhlaghpour, S., & Burton‐Jones, A. (2024) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-12-2022-0931 · Cited by 4
Evolution of the Health Record as a Communication Tool to Support Patient Safety
Kemp, T., Butler-Henderson, K. A., Allen, P., & Ayton, J. E. (2020) · Advances in library and information science (ALIS) book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-6618-3.ch008 · Cited by 5
Kemp, T., Ayton, J. E., Butler-Henderson, K. A., et al. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3071953/v1 · Cited by 4
Wang, Y., Hilsman, J., Li, C., Morris, M. M., Heider, P. M., Fu, S., Kwak, M. J., Wen, A., Applegate, J. R., Wang, L., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.01.24.25321096 · Cited by 4
Chen, H.-Y. W., Wurst, C., Lattimer, T. A., Setiowati, N., Bisantz, A. M., Wahler, R. G., Jacobs, D. M., Hewner, S. J., Stoll, J., Casucci, S., et al. (2025) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000001362 · Cited by 4
Sittig, D. F., Longhurst, C., Russo, E. M., & Singh, H. (2015) · Health informatics · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20765-0_2 · Cited by 3
Self-citationBracco, D., & Labeau, F. (2015) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000001007 · Cited by 3
Tremoulet, P. D., Lobo, A. F., Simmons, C. A., Baliga, G. R., & Brady, M. (2024) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/51612 · Cited by 3
Effect of Daily Safety Briefing Huddles on the Reporting of Adverse Events and Near-misses
Deng, M. (2019) · American Journal of Nursing Science · doi:10.11648/j.ajns.20190803.12 · Cited by 3
Safety and Privacy Issues of Electronic Medical Records
Rahim, F. A., Salahuddin, L. B., Ismail, Z., & Narayana, S. G. (2016) · Indian Journal of Science and Technology · doi:10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i42/100811 · Cited by 3
Malin, S. W., Swinger, N., Meanwell, E. V., Hawbaker, A. K., & Abulebda, K. (2021) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.14924 · Cited by 2
Characterization of Safety Events Involving Technology in Primary and Community Care
Recsky, C., Stowe, M., Rush, K. L., MacPhee, M., Blackburn, L., Muniak, A., & Currie, L. M. (2023) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0043-1777454 · Cited by 2
Fadahunsi, K. P., Wark, P. A., Mastellos, N., Neves, A. L., Gallagher, J., Majeed, A., & Car, J. (2025) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/58125 · Cited by 3
Analysis of Medical Device Recalls Owing to Output Information from Software
Kitawaki, R., Umezu, M., Iwasaki, K., & Kasanuki, H. (2016) · doi:10.14982/rsmp.6.281 · Cited by 2
Development of minimum data set and dashboard for monitoring adverse events in radiology departments
Karami, M., Hafizi, N., Nickfarjam, A. M., & Refahi, S. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30054 · Cited by 2
Mobile Technology Model to Collection Information of Self-Assisted Clinical History
Serrato-Lopez, J., Pacheco-Rojas, R. P., & Armas-Aguirre, J. (2018) · IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computing (INTERCON) · doi:10.1109/intercon.2018.8526434 · Cited by 2
UX Case Study: Tracking EHR automation, scarcity of attention, and transaction hazards
Rauch, S. (2019) · Online Journal of Public Health Informatics · doi:10.5210/ojphi.v11i1.9692 · Cited by 2
SAFETY CLIMATE IMPACT ON THE SAFETY BEHAVIOR IN CHEMICAL INDUSTRY OF THAILAND
Aeknarajindawat, N. (2020) · Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues · doi:10.9770/jssi.2020.9.j(8 · Cited by 2
Karami, M., Hafizi, N., & Refahi, S. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-900250/v1 · Cited by 2
Castro, G. M. (2014) · ProQuest Demo Repository · Cited by 2
Čihorić, N., Badra, E. V., Stenger-Weisser, A., et al. (2021) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/27550 · Cited by 1
Klein, S., Tsanas, A., Coleman, J. J., et al. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-86112-w · Cited by 1
Patient safety concerns in the go-live phase of an electronic health record implementation
Jämsä, J. O., Tissari, P., Kovanen, J., & Lehtonen, L. (2026) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2026.106539 · Cited by 1
Patient Safety Standards in the Neuro-ICU
Yeager, S., & Livesay, S. L. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17293-4_1 · Cited by 1
Usability Testing an Electronic Health Record: Lessons Learned and Ethical Considerations
Fuller, H. J. A., Maddox, K. D., & Lightner, N. J. (2016) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41652-6_39 · Cited by 1
Chapman, R. J., & Taylor, L. (2015) · Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · doi:10.1177/2327857915041011 · Cited by 1
Self-citationElectronic Health Record Implementation Strategies
Warren, R. A., & Diala, I. S. (2017) · International Journal of Computer Applications Technology and Research · doi:10.7753/ijcatr0611.1002 · Cited by 1
Julius, O. (2018) · Lupine Online Journal of Nursing & Health care · doi:10.32474/lojnhc.2018.02.000127 · Cited by 1
Nontransparency in Electronic Health Record Systems
Hawkins, J., Evans, B. J., & Krumholz, H. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108658867.024 · Cited by 1
Peranan Electronic Health Record System terhadap Keselamatan Pasien di Perawatan Anak
Yayah, Y., & Rahman, L. O. A. (2020) · JIKO (Jurnal Ilmiah Keperawatan Orthopedi) · doi:10.46749/jiko.v4i1.36 · Cited by 1
Vuokko, R., Vakkuri, A., & Palojoki, S. (2022) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/35474 · Cited by 1
HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS' PERCEPTION OF THE USABILITY OF ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS
(2019) · Issues in Information Systems · doi:10.48009/2_iis_2019_73-82 · Cited by 1
Adhistya, M., Kekenusa, J. S., & Sinolungan, J. S. V. (2023) · Neo Journal of economy and social humanities · doi:10.56403/nejesh.v2i2.106 · Cited by 1
Principle of open communication using screen sharing on electronic medical records
Manggala, Y., & Setyonugroho, W. (2023) · Jurnal Aisyah Jurnal Ilmu Kesehatan · doi:10.30604/jika.v8i2.1891 · Cited by 1
Abdel-Razik, M. K., Gad, R. A. E.-F. A., Kamel, F. F., et al. (2024) · Journal of Nursing Science Benha University/Journal of Nursing Science Benha University · doi:10.21608/jnsbu.2024.338677 · Cited by 1
Kinlay, M., Zheng, W. Y., Burke, R. A., et al. (2024) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000001204 · Cited by 1
Kato, D., Lucas, J., & Sittig, D. F. (2024) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocae107 · Cited by 1
Self-citationThe Safety Implications of Information Technology in Nursing: Japanese Incident Data Analysis
Miyagawa, S., Urata, Y., Watanabe, S., et al. (2024) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/shti240108 · Cited by 1
Heed, J., Heed, A., Klein, S., Slee, A., Watson, N., Husband, A., & Slight, S. P. (2025) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000001322 · Cited by 2
McFadzean, I. J., Bilal, M., Davies, K., et al. (2025) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzaf040 · Cited by 1
Understanding and De-risking the Dependencies between Operator and Manufacturer of Clinical IT
Despotou, G., Arvanitis, T. N., & White, S. (2015) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-538-8-197 · Cited by 1
Rantanen, M. M., Naskali, J., & Koskinen, J. S. S. (2018) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-97931-1_18 · Cited by 1
Evaluating the Technical Infrastructure of Electronic Health Record System (SEPAS)
Shahbakhsh, F. B. (2018) · Cited by 1
What are the most common medical errors/mistakes associated with EMR use?
Jackson, R. M., & Gill, C. A. (2019) · Evidence-Based Practice · doi:10.1097/ebp.0000000000000371 · Cited by 1
Yu, P. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69892-2_442-1 · Cited by 1
Social and Community Networks and Obesity
Demongeot, J., Elena, A., & Taramasco, C. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12125-3_19-1
Desiderio, K., & Pendersen, C. (2015) · Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.nurse.0000463657.86402.ea
Myers, R. B., Jones, S. L., Sittig, D. F., Meeks, D. W., Takian, A., Singh, H., Barber, N., Smith, M. W., Taylor, L., & Scott, J. (2015) · Apple Academic Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/b18371-3
Self-citationHorsky, J. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31123-4_3
Factors related to the adoption of electronic health records
Ngcaba, S. (2017) · UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria)
Clinical Informatics in Physiatry
Huang, M. E. (2017) · PM&R · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.03.009
Mobin, N. S. M., Yatin, S. F. M., Kadir, M. R. A., Tobi, S. N. M., Mahathir, N. A., Norolazmi, N., & Harun, Z. I. (2018) · International Journal of Engineering & Technology · doi:10.14419/ijet.v7i3.7.16386
Julius, O. (2018) · Lupine Online Journal of Nursing & Health care · doi:10.32474/lojnhc.2018.02.000128
Addressing issues with EMR resulting in workarounds: An exploratory study
Mishra, S., Slonka, K., Draus, P. J., et al. (2020) · Journal of Information Systems Applied Research and Analytics · doi:10.62273/kfzq3849
The Electronic Health Record as a Monitor for Performance Improvement
Wax, D. B. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108610650.016
Gurley, A. L., Tanch, J., Portelli, D. C., Priebe, C. J., Berube, J. A., Dieffenbach, A., Harris, R., Jalal, M., Sayles, S., Smulling, A. J., et al. (2020) · IEEE International IOT, Electronics and Mechatronics Conference (IEMTRONICS) · doi:10.1109/iemtronics51293.2020.9216436
Cent Raos per preservar les trames medievals. Les motivacions sentimentals i la tasca de Quadrado
Ramis, A. F. G. I. (2007) · El Mirall: revista cultural
Yu, P. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22009-9_442
Palojoki, S., Skants, N., Reponen, E., et al. (2022) · Finnish Journal of eHealth and eWelfare · doi:10.23996/fjhw.110823
Information Quality Frameworks for Digital Health Technologies: Systematic Review (Preprint)Preprint
Fadahunsi, K. P., O’Connor, S., Akinlua, J. T., et al. (2020) · doi:10.2196/preprints.23479
Electronic Health Records as an Educational Tool: Viewpoint (Preprint)Preprint
Habboush, Y. Y., Hoyt, R., & Beidas, S. (2018) · doi:10.2196/preprints.10306
Social and Community Networks and Obesity
Demongeot, J., Elena, A., & Taramasco, C. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11251-0_19
Čihorić, N., Badra, E. V., Stenger-Weisser, A., et al. (2021) · doi:10.2196/preprints.27550
Fadahunsi, K. P., Wark, P. A., Mastellos, N., Neves, A. L., Gallagher, J., Majeed, A., Webster, A. R., Smith, A. J., Choo‐Kang, B., Leon, C., et al. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4166779
Tremoulet, P. D., Lobo, A. F., Simmons, C. A., et al. (2023) · doi:10.2196/preprints.51612
Vuokko, R., Vakkuri, A., & Palojoki, S. (2021) · doi:10.2196/preprints.35474
Limitations in the use of automated mental status detection for clinical decision support
Wrenn, J. O., Christensen, M. A., & Ward, M. J. (2023) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105247
Liu, Z., Yu, X., & Zhang, Q. (2023) · doi:10.2196/preprints.53655
Fadahunsi, K. P., Wark, P. A., Mastellos, N., Neves, A. L., Gallagher, J., Majeed, A., & Car, J. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.58125
Metadata
- Authors
- Meeks, D. W., Smith, M. W., Taylor, L., Sittig, D. F., Scott, J. M., & Singh, H.
- Affiliations
- Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
- United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
- Memorial Hermann (US)
- Corresponding author
- Singh, Hardeep
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-11
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1053-1059
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC4215044
- OpenAlex
- W2148595420
- Semantic Scholar
- 9b75d5d6ec4e36813fe145af295d58b9926d0372
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 46.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (14-274, CIN13-413, USA 14-274)
- Office of Research and Development (CIN 13-413)
- Health Services Research and Development (CIN 13‐413, CRE12-033, USA 14-274)
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022087)
- U.S. Public Health Service (T32HP10031)
- Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (CIN 13–413, 13–413)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Keywords
- electronic health records, patient safety, socio-technical model, near misses, software upgrade, data transmission, hidden dependencies, workflow, EHR implementation, safety reporting, Veterans Health Administration
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Retrospective Studies, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Errors, Workflow, Electronic Health Records, Patient Safety
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
