Cited by 364Electronic Health Records SystemsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Determinants of Success of Inpatient Clinical Information Systems: A Literature Review

Open access
van der Meijden, M. J.·2003·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

We reviewed the English and Dutch literature on evaluations of patient care information systems that require data entry by health care professionals published from 1991 to 2001. Our objectives were to identify attributes that were used to assess the success of such systems and to test the ability of a framework developed by Delone and McLean for management information systems(1) to categorize these attributes correctly. The framework includes six dimensions or success factors: system quality, information quality, usage, user satisfaction, individual impact, and organizational impact. Thirty-three papers were selected for complete review. Types of study design included descriptive, correlational, comparative, and case studies. A variety of relevant attributes could be assigned to the six dimensions in the Delone and McLean framework, but some attributes, predominantly in cases of failure, did not fit any of the categories. They related to contingent factors, such as organizational culture. Our review points out the need for more thorough evaluations of patient care information systems that look at a wide range of factors that can affect the relative success or failure of these systems.

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 · 10.1197/jamia.m1094

Cites

61 of 61 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van der Meijden, M. J.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2003-01-28
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
235-243
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2108856141
Cited by
363
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 31
FWCI
2.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
clinical information systems, system success factors, system quality, information quality, user satisfaction, organizational impact, organizational culture, system evaluation
MeSH terms
Computer Systems, Consumer Behavior, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Hospital Information Systems, Humans, Nursing Records, Organizational Innovation, Organizational Culture, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Computer Security

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