Cited by 101Electronic Health Records SystemsInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationPatient Safety and Medication Errors

The unintended consequences of health information technology revisited

Open access
Ash, J., Berg, M., Coiera, E.·2016·Yearbook of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Summary: Introduction: The introduction of health information technology into clinical settings is associated with unintended negative consequences, some with the potential to lead to error and patient harm. As adoption rates soar, the impact of these hazards will increase. Objective: Over the last decade, unintended consequences have received great attention in the medical informatics literature, and this paper seeks to identify the major themes that have emerged. Results: Rich typologies of the causes of unintended consequences have been developed, along with a number of explanatory frameworks based on socio-technical systems theory. We however still have only limited data on the frequency and impact of these events, as most studies rely on data sets from incident reporting or patient chart reviews, rather than undertaking detailed observational studies. Such data are increasingly needed as more organizations implement health information technologies. When outcome studies have been done in different organizations, they reveal different outcomes for identical systems. From a theoretical perspective, recent advances in the emerging discipline of implementation science have much to offer in explaining the origin, and variability, of unintended consequences. Conclusion: The dynamic nature of health care service organizations, and the rapid development and adoption of health information technologies means that unintended consequences are unlikely to disappear, and we therefore must commit to developing robust systems to detect and manage them.

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 · 10.15265/iy-2016-014

Cites

62 of 62 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 [3]

    The 'Unintended Consequences of Clinical Decision-Support Systems' section (page unavailable) lists 'more/new work for clinicians' among the consequences of computerized provider order entry. It does not identify that work as EHR documentation burden or link it to burnout among physicians or nurses. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Coiera E. Guide to Health Informatics (3rd Edi- tion). 3rd ed. London: CRC Press; 2015.
  2. Novak LL, Holden RJ, Anders SH, Hong JY, Karsh BT. Using a sociotechnical framework to under- stand adaptations in health IT implementation. Int J Med Inform 2013;82(12):e331-e44.
  3. Sweller J, Ayres P, Kalyuga S. Cognitive load theory. Springer; 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ash, J., Berg, M., & Coiera, E.
Affiliations
  • KPMG (United States) (US)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Coiera, E.
Venue
Yearbook of Medical Informatics
Published
2016-08
Volume
25
Issue
01
Pages
163-169
ISSN
  • 0943-4747 (ISSN-L)
  • 2364-0502
OpenAlex
W2554844626
Cited by
101
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
13.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Yearbook of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
health information technology, unintended consequences, patient safety, medical errors, patient harm, socio-technical systems theory, implementation science, incident reporting, health care organization, technology adoption
MeSH terms
Cognition, Humans, Medical Informatics, Risk Management, User-Computer Interface, Electronic Health Records

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