Cited by 113Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsMedical Coding and Health Information

EHR Safety: The Way Forward to Safe and Effective Systems

Open access
Walker, J. M., Carayon, P., Leveson, N., Paulus, R. A., Tooker, J., Chin, H., Bothe, A., Stewart, W. F.·2008·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Diverse stakeholders--clinicians, researchers, business leaders, policy makers, and the public--have good reason to believe that the effective use of electronic health care records (EHRs) is essential to meaningful advances in health care quality and patient safety. However, several reports have documented the potential of EHRs to contribute to health care system flaws and patient harm. As organizations (including small hospitals and physician practices) with limited resources for care-process transformation, human-factors engineering, software safety, and project management begin to use EHRs, the chance of EHR-associated harm may increase. The authors propose a coordinated set of steps to advance the practice and theory of safe EHR design, implementation, and continuous improvement. These include setting EHR implementation in the context of health care process improvement, building safety into the specification and design of EHRs, safety testing and reporting, and rapid communication of EHR-related safety flaws and incidents.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1197/jamia.m2618

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 48 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingcitation

    In organizations with mature EHRs, including the authors', clinicians consider easy access to test results, observations, decision support, and e-messaging essential to care quality and patient safety.

    “In those organizations, including those of the authors, clinicians regard easy access to test results, clinician observations, clinical-decision support, and e-messaging as vital to care quality and patient safety.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    The third study, in a children's hospital subpopulation, found mortality doubled from 2.8% to 6.6% after CPOE implementation.

    “The third study, conducted in a subpopulation of a children's hospital, documented a doubling of mortality (from 2.8% to 6.6%) after CPOE implementation.23”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    The number of identified EHR-related flaws rises sharply with each new software deployment, including initial implementations and upgrades.

    “The identification of EHR-related flaws increases markedly with every new software deployment (both original implementations and upgrades).22,42”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [22] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [42]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    The fourth study, in the same hospital, found no significant mortality change.

    “The fourth study, conducted in the same hospital, showed no significant change in mortality.24”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    The first two widely cited CPOE studies did not demonstrate improvements in patient outcomes.

    “Although the first two studies have been widely cited as showing CPOE benefits, neither showed improvements in patient outcomes.20 -22”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [20] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [21] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [22] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. 6
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 2
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    EHRs are complex technological innovations that affect workflows, communication, job roles, working conditions, and job security.

    “Because EHRs are particularly complex technology innovations-affecting workflows, communications, job definitions, working conditions, and job security-demonstrat-ing and improving their safety is critically important.[5][6][7][8][9][10]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [5] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [7] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [8] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [10] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The fifth study found that 31% of physicians and 56% of nurses thought the EHR improved overall care.

    “The fifth study found that only thirty-one percent of physicians and fifty-six percent of nurses believed that the EHR contributed to improvement of care overall.25”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [25] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Using an EHR safely and effectively demands new organizational policies, workflows, work systems, job roles, and training.

    “This approach will reinforce the fact that safe and effective use of an EHR requires new organizational policies, processes, work systems, job descriptions, and education.38,39”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [38]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [39]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The second study found more medication errors and adverse drug events, which decreased after the CPOE interface was improved.

    “In fact, the second study reported an increase in medication errors and adverse drug events, which was reversed after an improvement in the CPOE interface.22”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Chaudhry et al.'s systematic review concluded that in most settings it is hard to know what benefits to expect from health information technology and how to implement it for maximum value.

    “A more recent systematic review of health care information technology (largely EHRs) by Chaudhry et al. concluded that in most health care settings, it may be difficult “to determine what benefits to expect from health information technology use and how best to implement the system in order to maximize the value derived.”27”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Most available studies were conducted by EHR developers and examined only a few error types related to order entry (CPOE).

    “The few available studies have largely been conducted by the developers of the EHRs and have focused on the effect of order entry (CPOE) systems on a limited number of error types.[17][18][19][20]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [17] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [18]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [19] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A systematic review of outpatient CPOE found only four safety studies and concluded there is inadequate evidence that CPOE improves safety or reduces cost in outpatient settings.

    “A systematic review of outpatient CPOE systems found only four studies that addressed safety and concluded, “the relatively small number of evaluation studies published to date do not provide adequate evidence that CPOE systems enhance safety and reduce cost in the outpatient settings.”28”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] source

      Not checked in the free run.

7 of 7
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Widespread EHR adoption is necessary to achieve many American health care goals, including better care quality and patient safety.

    “There is a growing consensus that widespread adoption of electronic health care records (EHRs) is essential to achieving many American health care goals, including improved care quality and patient safety”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The benefits of well-managed EHRs are probably substantial.

    “Although the benefits of well-managed EHRs may seem obvious and are likely substantial”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Few EHR risk-management strategies have been published.

    “Few EHR risk-management strategies have been published.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No published research identifies a comprehensive set of effective risk-reduction activities.

    “In the absence of published research that identifies a comprehensive set of effective risk-reduction activities”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most EHR-related safety flaws are found and fixed before they cause a safety incident.

    “Most of these flaws are identified and mitigated before a safety incident occurs.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A small fraction (anecdotally less than 0.1%) of flaws are discovered only after they contribute to an incident.

    “A small number (anecdotally, Ͻ0.1%) are discovered after they contribute to an incident (for example, a medication administration error).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Smaller hospitals and most physician practices likely lack the resources to mount such an initiative.

    “Smaller hospitals and most physician practices are unlikely to have the resources to mount such an initiative.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The decades-long iterative development of early EHRs improved the fit between the software and the organization, users, and care processes.

    “The decades-long, iterative development process that these early EHRs went through improved the fit between the software and the organization, the users, and the care processes.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the first organizations to use EHRs, software designers knew the organization, the users, and the care processes the EHR was meant to support.

    “In the first organizations to use EHRs, software designers knew the organization, the EHR's users, and the specific care processes the EHR was meant to support.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Changing a complex EHR after development or implementation is extremely difficult, error-prone, and expensive.

    “Changing a software system as complex as an EHR after it has been developed (or implemented) is enormously difficult, error-prone, and expensive.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Local EHR implementation and continuous-improvement teams make many decisions that can create system-safety flaws.

    “Local EHR implementation and continuous-improvement teams make many decisions-regarding organizational policies, work processes, and software configurations-that have the potential to create system-safety flaws.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Some EHR flaws originate in the vendor's software creation process, while others come from the customer or from interactions between the EHR and other systems; the distinction is often hard to make.

    “Some of these flaws will turn out to be related to the vendor's software creation process; others will have been introduced by the customer or by interactions between the EHR and other health care systems.Often, this distinction will be difficult to make.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A well-designed taxonomy of EHR-related system safety flaws and safety incidents has not yet been developed.

    “The clearinghouse should be based on a well-designed taxonomy of EHR-related system safety flaws and safety incidents, which has yet to be developed.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Knowledge about how to develop, implement, and continuously improve EHRs for patient safety is currently limited and inaccessible to most health care organizations.

    “Knowledge of how to develop, implement, and continuously improve EHRs for patient safety is currently limited and not accessible to most health care organizations.”
14 of 14

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?

  • Existing classifications, including AIMS and the ICPS, fall short with respect to computer-related incidents because this source of risk has not been systematically examined.

    “However, existing classifications, including AIMS and the ICPS, 18 fall short with respect to computer-related incidents as this source of risk has yet to be systematically examined.20”
  • Incident reporting to facilitate rapid communication of safety flaws and critical events arising from computer use is one of seven steps proposed to improve the safety of healthcare IT.

    “Indeed, incident reporting to facilitate rapid communication of safety flaws and critical events arising from computer use is one of seven steps which have been proposed to improve the safety of healthcare IT. 20”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine, 144, E-12

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walker, J. M., Carayon, P., Leveson, N., Paulus, R. A., Tooker, J., Chin, H., Bothe, A., & Stewart, W. F.
Affiliations
  • Geisinger Health System (US)
  • University of Wisconsin System (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • American College of Physicians (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Geisinger Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Walker, J. M.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2008-05-01
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
272-277
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W30038292
Cited by
113
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
24.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
electronic health records, patient safety, EHR design, EHR implementation, healthcare process improvement, human factors engineering, software safety, safety testing, safety reporting, incident communication, small hospitals, physician practice, quality of care
MeSH terms
Humans, Safety, Software, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Medical Errors

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

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