Cited by 68Healthcare RegulationElectronic Health Records SystemsSafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Summary Recommendations for Responsible Monitoring and Regulation of Clinical Software Systems

Miller, Randolph A., Gardner, Reed M.·1997·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Clinical software systems are becoming ubiquitous. A growing literature documents how these systems can improve health care delivery, but concerns about patient safety must now be formally addressed. In 1996, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for discussions on regulation of software programs as medical devices. In response, a consortium of organizations dedicated to improving health care through information technology developed recommendations for the responsible regulation and monitoring of clinical software systems by users, vendors, and regulatory agencies. These recommendations were revised and approved by the American Medical informatics Association Public Policy Committee and Board. Other organizations reviewed, modified, and approved the recommendations, and the Boards of Directors of most of the organizations in the consortium endorsed the guidelines. The consortium proposes four categories of clinical system risk and four classes of monitoring and regulatory action that can be applied on the basis of the risk level. The consortium recommends that most clinical software systems be supervised locally and that developers of health care information systems adopt a code of good business practices. Budgetary and other constraints limit the type and number of systems that the FDA can regulate effectively; therefore, the FDA should exempt most clinical software systems and focus on systems that pose high clinical risk and provide limited opportunity for competent human intervention.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-127-9-199711010-00014

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 68

Metadata

Authors
Miller, R. A., & Gardner, R. M.
Affiliations
American Medical Informatics Association (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, Randolph A.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
1997-11-01
Volume
127
Issue
9
Pages
842-845
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2047844681
Cited by
68
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
14.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5g08lm005443-07, 5r01lm006226-03)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (1-R01-LM-06226, 5-G08-LM-05443)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Regulation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Keywords
health information technology, software regulation, patient safety, risk-based monitoring, regulatory guidelines, software companies
MeSH terms
Computer Systems, Humans, Information Systems, Software, Software Validation, Clinical Medicine, Device Approval

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Summary Recommendations for Responsible Monitoring and Regulation of Clinical Software Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-127-9-199711010-00014
The paper
Miller, R. A., & Gardner, R. M. (1997). Summary Recommendations for Responsible Monitoring and Regulation of Clinical Software Systems. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-9-199711010-00014