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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Complicating matters, the health care literature documents the potential of EHRs to contribute to safety incidents and patient harm.1,23,30 -33”
From EHR Safety: The Way Forward to Safe and Effective Systems (2008) · cites this paper as [31]
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
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- 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