Cited by 62Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesHealthcare Regulation

Challenges in ethics, safety, best practices, and oversight regarding HIT vendors, their customers, and patients: a report of an AMIA special task force

Open access
Goodman, Kenneth W, Berner, Eta S, Dente, Mark A, Kaplan, Bonnie, Koppel, Ross, Rucker, Donald, Sands, Daniel Z, Winkelstein, Peter +1 more·2011·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

The current commercial health information technology (HIT) arena encompasses a number of competing firms that provide electronic health applications to hospitals, clinical practices, and other healthcare-related entities. Such applications collect, store, and analyze patient information. Some vendors incorporate contract language whereby purchasers of HIT systems, such as hospitals and clinics, must indemnify vendors for malpractice or personal injury claims, even if those events are not caused or fostered by the purchasers. Some vendors require contract clauses that force HIT system purchasers to adopt vendor-defined policies that prevent the disclosure of errors, bugs, design flaws, and other HIT-software-related hazards. To address this issue, the AMIA Board of Directors appointed a Task Force to provide an analysis and insights. Task Force findings and recommendations include: patient safety should trump all other values; corporate concerns about liability and intellectual property ownership may be valid but should not over-ride all other considerations; transparency and a commitment to patient safety should govern vendor contracts; institutions are duty-bound to provide ethics education to purchasers and users, and should commit publicly to standards of corporate conduct; and vendors, system purchasers, and users should encourage and assist in each others' efforts to adopt best practices. Finally, the HIT community should re-examine whether and how regulation of electronic health applications could foster improved care, public health, and patient safety.

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.2010.008946

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • There are potential risks of telehealth data transmission for patient confidentiality and risks of network vulnerability for patient safety.

    “Nonetheless it is important to highlight the potential risks of telehealth data transmission for patient confidentiality and the risks of network vulnerability for patient safety [117], [118], [119].”

    From The Impact of Telehealthcare on the Quality and Safety of Care: A Systematic Overview (2013) · cites this paper as [118]

    The Education and ethics section identifies privacy, confidentiality, and security challenges in health IT, while Recommendations—Contract language says system defects and software deficiencies can threaten patient safety. The paper does not specifically link confidentiality risks to telehealth data transmission or patient-safety risks to network vulnerability (searched: telehealth, network vulnerability, and transmission). (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goodman, K. W., Berner, E. S., Dente, M. A., Kaplan, B., Koppel, R., Rucker, D., Sands, D. Z., Winkelstein, P., & for the AMIA Board of Directors
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • GE Healthcare IT, Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Siemens Healthcare (United States) (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Goodman, Kenneth W
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2010-11-12
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
77-81
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2117138649
Cited by
62
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
13.71
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)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Regulation
Keywords
patient safety, vendor contracts, ethics education, firm behavior, intellectual property ownership, liability, transparency, best practices
MeSH terms
Commerce, Confidentiality, Humans, Medical Informatics, Public Policy, Risk Management, United States, Liability, Legal, Contracts, Government Regulation, Marketing

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