Cited by 175Electronic Health Records SystemsInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Addressing organizational issues into the evaluation of medical systems

Open access
Kaplan, B.·1997·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

New system design and evaluation methodologies are being developed to address social, organizational, political, and other non-technological issues in medical informatics. This paper describes a social interactionist framework for researching these kinds of organizational issues, based on research within medical informatics and other disciplines over the past 20 years. It discusses how effective evaluation strategies may be undertaken to address organizational issues concerning computer information systems in medicine and health care. The paper begins with a theoretical framework for evaluation. It then describes the 4Cs of evaluation: communication, care, control, and context. Five methodological guidelines are given for conducting comprehensive evaluations that address these 4Cs. An example of an evaluation research design that fits the guidelines and was used in an evaluation of an on-line clinical imaging system is discussed. Results of the evaluation study illustrate how this approach addresses organizational concerns and the 4Cs.

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/jamia.1997.0040094

Cites

55 of 55 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?

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: 12

  1. Anderson JG, Aydin CE, Jay SJ, eds. Evaluating Health Care Information Systems: Approaches and Applications. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994.
  2. Nyce JM, Graves W III. The construction of neurology: im- plications for hypermedia system development. Artif Intell Med. 1990;2:315 -22.
  3. Anderson JG, Aydin CE. Theoretical perspectives and meth- odologies for the evaluation of health care information sys- tems. In: Anderson JG, Aydin CE, and Jay SJ (eds). Evalu- ating Health Care Information Systems: Methods and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994; 5 -29.
  4. Kaplan B. A model comprehensive evaluation plan for com- plex information systems: clinical imaging systems as an example, European Conference on Information Technology Investment Evaluation Proceedings, 1995;174 -81.
  5. Anderson JG, Aydin CE. Theoretical perspectives and meth- odologies for the evaluation of health care information sys- tems. In: Anderson JG, Aydin CE, Jay SJ (eds). Evaluating Health Care Information Systems: Methods and Applica- tions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994;5 -29.
  6. Kolb DA, Frohman AL. An organization development ap- proach to consulting. Sloan Manage Rev. 1970;12:51 -65.
  7. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed. New York: The Free Press, 1983.
  8. Kaplan B, Duchon D. Combining qualitative and quantita- tive approaches in information systems research: a case study. MIS Quarterly. 1988;4:571 -86.
  9. Kaplan B. Organizational evaluation of medical information systems. In: Friedman CP, Wyatt JC (eds). Evaluation Meth- ods in Medical Informatics. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1996.
  10. Keen J, Stirling B, Muris N, Weatherburn G, Buxton M. A model for the evaluation of PACS. SCAR Proceedings, 1994; 22 -9.
  11. Dayhoff RE, Maloney DL, Kuzmak PM, Shepard BM. Inte- grating medical images into hospital information systems. J Digit Imaging. 1991;4:87 -93.
  12. Dayhoff RE, Kuzmak P, Maloney D. Medical images as an integral part of the patient's automated record. Symp Com- puter-Assisted Radiology Proceedings. Baltimore, MD, 1991.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kaplan, B.
Affiliations
Quinnipiac University (US)
Corresponding author
Kaplan, B.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
1997-03-01
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
94-101
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2147164934
Cited by
175
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
14.66
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)
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 › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
organizational challenges, communication, care, control, context, medical informatics
MeSH terms
Communication, Documentation, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Management Information Systems, Organizational Innovation, Research Design, Program Evaluation, Models, Organizational

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