The slow adoption of medical informatics in hospitals

• Autorzy: Lane V. , Lane D.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper examines the use of computing in hospitals and compares this with the use of computing in general practice. In the UK, virtually all GPs, i.e. doctors in primary care, use computers and computer-based records in their care of patients, whereas most doctors in hospitals do not [3, 25]. There are many reasons given for the lower use of computers in hospitals. It has been suggested that hospital medical activities are more complex than those in general practice and that there has been too little investment in hospital information and communication technology (ICT), two truisms. This paper examines and compares the different and contrasting theories that attempt to explain this phenomenum. The paper has relevance to (1) researchers wishing to migrate successful research from a 'research laboratory environment' such as in a medical school to a real-world setting in a hospital or a hospital clinic, (2) medical informatics researchers interested in investigating the problems of ICT implementations in hospitals, and (3) medical informatics practitioners involved in real-world hospital ICT developments.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

hospitals; informatics; general practice; suboptimal use

PL

szpitale; informatyka; powszechna praktyka

• Wydawca: University of Silesia, Institute of Informatics, Computer Systems Department
• Czasopismo: Journal of Medical Informatics & Technologies
• Rocznik: 2003
• Tom: Vol. 5
• Strony: MI91--100
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 37 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Lane V.

• Research Centre for Public Sector Management, The Business School, South Bank University, London, UK.

autor

Lane D.

Bibliografia

• [1] AMMENWERTH,E., MANSMANN,U. ILLER,C., EICHSTÄDTER,E. Factors affecting and affected by user acceptance of computer-based nursing documentation: Results of a Two-year Study, JAMIA, Vol. 10:69-84, 2003.
• [2] ARNOTT, S. The NHS announces details of IT reform contracts, London: Computing, 13 Feb, pp.5, 2003.
• [3] BENSON, T. Why general practitioners use computers and hospital doctors do not - Part 1: Incentives. British Medical Journal, Vol. 325, pp.1086-1089, 2002
• [4] BENSON, T. Why general practitioners use computers and hospital doctors do not - Part 2: Scalability. British Medical Journal, Vol. 325, pp.1090-1093, 2002
• [5] BODENHEIMER, T. Innovations in primary care in the USA, BMJ, Vol. 326, pp. 796-798, 12 April, 2002
• [6] COLLINS, T. Crash – Ten easy ways to avoid a computer disaster, London: Simon & Schuster, 1997
• [7] COLLINS, T. Lack of change management could jeopardise IT programme, London: Computer Weekly, pp. 1, 1st July, 2003.
• [8] COUNSEIL DE L'EUROPE, Computerisation of medical data in hospital services, Co-ordinated Medical Research Programme, Counseil de L'Europe, Strasbourg, 1988.
• [9] CROSS, M., Blair’s £40 billion gamble on IT – last week the Government gave the NHS a huge shot in the arm for the world’s largest IT project, Online, pp.1-3, London: The Guardian, 2002.
• [10] CROSS. M. Bringing the NHS into the computer age, London: The Guardian, 13 Feb. pp. 11, 2003.
• [11] DELOITTE & TOUCHE, The emerging European health telematics industry – market analysis, European Commission, DG Information Society, 2000.
• [12] EMERY, JD., Computer decision support systems – computer support is a complex intervention, BMJ, Vol. 325, Rapid Response, 29 October, 2002.
• [13] FEACHEM, R.G,A. SEKHRI, N.K. WHITE, K.I. Getting more for their dollar – a comparison of the NHS with California’s Kaiser Permanente, BMJ, Vol 324, pp. 135-143, 19 Jan, 2002
• [14] HAMMOND, W.E. The primary care provider and the electronic medical record – sleeping with the enemy, Proceedings Annual Conference, Primary Health Care Specialist Group, British Computer Society, Cambridge, pp. 4-10, 1997
• [15] HARRISON, J. HOLLOWAY, M. JENKINS, T. Management and strategy , London: Chartered Association of Certified Accountants, 2002
• [16] HMSO. Securing our future health: Taking a long-term view -The Wanless Review, London:HMSO, 2002
• [17] HODGE, MH. Direct use by physicians of the TDS medical information system. In: Bruce I Blum and Karen Duncan, A history of medical informatics, New York: ACM Press, 1990.
• [18] IBM, Improving software development capability – the three imperatives. A Whitepaper from Rational Software Division of IBM, 2003.
• [19] INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE, The computer-based patient record: an essential technology for health care, Washington: National Academy Press, 1997
• [20] KEEN, J. Rethinking NHS networking, BMJ, Vol.316, 1291-1293, 25 April, 1998.
• [21] KELLY, L. Why IT projects fail, Computing, pp. 11, 24 July, 2003.
• [22] LAERUM, H. ELLINGSEN, G. FAXVAAG, A. Doctors’ use of EMR systems in hospitals, BMJ, Vol. 323, pp. 1344-1348, 8 Dec, 2001.
• [23] LANE, V.P. Information Systems Projects - Are Failures Congenital or Acquired? pp.156-164. In: J. Bryant (Editor) Current Perspectives in Healthcare Computing HC’99, London: British Computer Society, 1999
• [24] LANE, V.P. HAYWARD, P. Neural Networks and expert systems in acute and primary medicine - reflections on a decade of research studies, MI 49-58. In: J. Piecha (Editor) Journal of Medical Informatics & Technologies - Volume 1, University of Silesia, Dept. of Electronics and Computer Systems, 2001.
• [25] LANE, V.P, HAYWARD, P, Medical Records – opportunities for and challenges of computerisation” The Lancet, Vol. 353, Correspondence, pp.330-331, 1999.
• [26] LANE, V.P. HAYWARD, P., LANE, DC., The Impact of E-Business Technologies on Healthcare – New Horizons or False Dawns? IP 15-24. In: J. Piecha (Editor) Journal of Medical Informatics & Technologies - Volume 3, University of Silesia, Dept. of Electronics and Computer Systems, 2002.
• [27] LORENZI, NM, AND RILEY, RT. Review Paper: Managing Change - An Overview, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.116-124, 2000
• [28] MELICHAR, J.K. Why hospital doctors do not compute, BMJ, Vol. 325, 13 Nov, 2002.
• [29] MITCHELL, E. SULLIVAN, F. A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine – a systematic review of primary care computing articles. BMJ, Vol. 322, pp. 279-282, 2001.
• [30] NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE – PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE. Sixty second report – The purchase of the Read Codes and the management of the NHS Centre for Coding and Classification, London: Stationery Office, 1998
• [31] NHS INFORMATION AUTHORITY, NHS Connect programme, Birmingham: NHS IA, 2002.
• [32] SIMPSON, K. GORDON, M. The anatomy of a clinical information system, BMJ, Vol 316, pp.1655-1658, 30 May, 1998
• [33] SULLIVAN, F. MITCHELL, E. Systematic review of GP clinical systems. BMJ, Vol. 311, pp. 848-852, 1995.
• [34] TAPE, TG, The future of primary care computing. www.racgp.aone.net.au/papers (visited July 2003)
• [35] THORNETT, A.M. The negative effects of computers in the doctor-patient encounter, BMJ, Vol. 316, 5 Sept., 2002.
• [36] TUOMI, I., Networks of Innovation – Change and meaning in the age of the Internet, Oxford University Press, 2002.
• [37] WARING, N. To what extent are family practices ‘paperless’ and what are the constraints to them becoming more so? Br. Journal of General Practice, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 46-47, 2000.