HIT or Miss – studying failures to enable success
Open accessAbstract
Keywords Health IT implementation - success - failure - lessons learned - transparency - American Reinvestment and Recovery Act - adverse event - patient safety - gag clause - meaningful use
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?
An estimated 70% of health IT projects fail.
“An estimated 70% of health IT projects fail [22]”
From Barriers to and facilitators of artificial intelligence adoption in health care: scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [22]
The Abstract says HIT projects fail at a rate *up to* 70%, using a definition of failure that includes delays, substantial cost overruns, unmet goals, and abandonment. The citing sentence presents 70% as the estimated failure rate rather than an upper bound, and omits that definition. (LLM, conf=0.86)
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
Koppel, R., & Kreda, D. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.398 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
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 (2011) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.008946 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- HIT or Miss: lessons learned from health information technology implementations. Chicago; AHIMA Press; 2010.
- Ridler K. Chronicles of Mountain Te rror: The Bulletin. 2002 February 4. [cited 2011 Mar 14] ; Available from : http://www.traditionalmountaineering.org/News_AAC_Accidents.htm
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barriers to and facilitators of artificial intelligence adoption in health care: scoping review
Hassan, M., Kushniruk, A., & Borycki, E. (2024) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/48633 · Cited by 324 · see citing works
Arnautovska, U., Ritchie, G., Soole, R., Menon, A., Korman, N., Milton, A., Varnfield, M., Kelly, J., Jansen, P., Baker, A., et al. (2025) · Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · doi:10.2147/ndt.s513272 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“13 Despite low engagement, recent systematic reviews demonstrate that the use of mobile phone technologies is feasible and acceptable for people with SMI.”
- Authors
- Leviss, J.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Leviss, J.
- Venue
- Applied Clinical Informatics
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 02
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 345-349
- ISSN
- 1869-0327 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3631932
- OpenAlex
- W2157389716
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Applied Clinical Informatics (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (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 › Healthcare Regulation
- Keywords
- health information technology implementation, implementation success and failure, lessons learned, transparency, adverse events, patient safety, gag clauses, meaningful use, 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
