Challenges in ethics, safety, best practices, and oversight regarding HIT vendors, their customers, and patients: a report of an AMIA special task force
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Recommendations for Responsible Monitoring and Regulation of Clinical Software Systems
Miller, R. A., & Gardner, R. M. (1997) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.1997.0040442 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Koppel, R., & Kreda, D. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.398 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Self-citationSummary Recommendations for Responsible Monitoring and Regulation of Clinical Software Systems
Miller, R. A., & Gardner, R. M. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-9-199711010-00014 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Impact of Telehealthcare on the Quality and Safety of Care: A Systematic Overview
McLean, S., Sheikh, A., Cresswell, K., Nurmatov, U., Mukherjee, M., Hemmi, A., & Pagliari, C. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071238 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
Using FDA reports to inform a classification for health information technology safety problems
Magrabi, F., Ong, M.-S., Runciman, W., & Coiera, E. (2012) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000369 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Guise, V., Anderson, J., & Wiig, S. (2014) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0588-z · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Magrabi, F., Baker, M., Sinha, I., Ong, M.-S., Harrison, S., Kidd, M. R., Runciman, W. B., & Coiera, E. (2015) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.12.003 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Myers, R. B., Jones, S. L., & Sittig, D. F. (2011) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.4338/aci-2010-11-ra-0064 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
HIT or Miss – studying failures to enable success
Leviss, J. (2011) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.4338/aci-2011-03-ie-0020 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- 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
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-11-12
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 77-81
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC3005880
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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