Cited by 1,789Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsMedical Coding and Health Information

Some Unintended Consequences of Information Technology in Health Care: The Nature of Patient Care Information System-related Errors

Open access
Ash, J. S.·2003·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Medical error reduction is an international issue, as is the implementation of patient care information systems (PCISs) as a potential means to achieving it. As researchers conducting separate studies in the United States, The Netherlands, and Australia, using similar qualitative methods to investigate implementing PCISs, the authors have encountered many instances in which PCIS applications seem to foster errors rather than reduce their likelihood. The authors describe the kinds of silent errors they have witnessed and, from their different social science perspectives (information science, sociology, and cognitive science), they interpret the nature of these errors. The errors fall into two main categories: those in the process of entering and retrieving information, and those in the communication and coordination process that the PCIS is supposed to support. The authors believe that with a heightened awareness of these issues, informaticians can educate, design systems, implement, and conduct research in such a way that they might be able to avoid the unintended consequences of these subtle silent errors.

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.m1471

Cites

85 of 85 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?

  • Documentation burden associated with electronic health records is linked to clinician burnout among physicians and nurses.

    “Electronic health records (EHRs) are linked with documentation burden resulting in clinician burnout.”

    From Measurement of clinical documentation burden among physicians and nurses using electronic health records: a scoping review (2021) · cites this paper as [9]

    The paper says patient care information systems can add work tasks (p. 1), and its “Structure” section (p. 4) reports that elaborate data entry can take substantially longer than paper-based recording. It does not link that burden to clinician burnout among physicians or nurses. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Poor accessibility of user interfaces may limit the benefits of health information systems and has been cited as a source of medical and user errors and health worker burnout.

    “Poor accessibility of user interfaces may limit the benefits of health information systems and has been cited as a source of medical and user errors and health worker burnout.21–23”

    From Effect of mobile application user interface improvements on minimum expected home visit coverage by community health workers in Mali: a randomised controlled trial (2021) · cites this paper as [21]

    The section “Errors in the Process of Entering and Retrieving Information” (p. 3) says impractical interfaces consume clinicians’ time and make information hard to find. “Results: Categorization of Errors” (p. 3) links mismatches between systems and clinical work to errors in information handling and care delivery. The passages support the claim about limited benefits and errors, but do not establish that poor interface accessibility causes health worker burnout. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Application of AI systems in the real world may lead to many unintended outcomes, including alert fatigue, additional burdens for clinicians, disruption of interpersonal communications, and generation of specific threats requiring increased vigilance to recognize.

    “Application of AI systems in the real world may lead to many unintended outcomes, including alert fatigue,131 additional burdens for clinicians, disruption of interpersonal communications, and generation of specific threats requiring increased vigilance to recognize.132”

    From Artificial intelligence in diabetes management: Advancements, opportunities, and challenges (2023) · cites this paper as [132]

    The introduction (p. 1) says patient care information systems can add work tasks, disrupt communication routines, and create hazards requiring vigilance to detect. These points support the outcomes attached to citation 132, but the paper discusses patient care information systems rather than AI systems specifically. Alert fatigue is attached to citation 131, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • It is widely accepted that alert fatigue explains high override rates.

    “It is widely accepted that “alert fatigue” explains high override rates [7, 9–14].”
  • Digital systems reduce visibility of system state and process integrity, making HIT hazards latent and detected indirectly through downstream consequences.

    “Digital systems frequently mediate clinical work in ways that reduce direct visibility of system state and process integrity.”

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

1 of the 86 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [50]50. Siddiqi J, Shekaran MC. Requirements engineering: the emerging wisdom. IEEE Software. 1996;13:15-9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ash, J. S.
Affiliations
Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Ash, J. S.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2003-11-21
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
104-112
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W1787211267
Cited by
1,789
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 93 · 2018: 75 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 108 · 2015: 106 · 2014: 106 · 2013: 132 · 2012: 142
FWCI
101.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Library of Medicine (LM06942-02)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
Keywords
clinical information systems, medical errors, silent errors, medical error reduction, health informatics, system design and implementation
MeSH terms
Communication, Patient Care, Humans, Information Systems, Patient Care Management, User-Computer Interface, Information Storage and Retrieval, Medical Errors, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

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