HIM 301 Introduction to Health Informatics- WK1-D2

Hoffman, RR, Militello, LG: Perspectives on Cognitive Task Analysis. 2009, Psychology Press Taylor and Francis Group, New York, NY.

51.

Schraagen, J, Chipman, S, Shalin, V: Cognitive Task Analysis. 2000, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahway, NJ.

52.

Ericsson, K, Simon, H: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Rev. ed, 1993, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

53.

Kaplan, B, Maxwell, J: Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems. In Anderson, JG, Aydin, CE, Jay, SJ (Eds.): Evaluating Health Care Information Systems: Approaches and Applications. 1994, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 45–68.

54.

Staggers, N, Clark, L, Blaz, J, Kapsandoy, S: Nurses’ information management and use of electronic tools during acute care handoffs. Western J Nurs Res. 34(2), 2012, 151–171.

55.

Staggers, N, Clark, L, Blaz, J, Kapsandoy, S: Why patient summaries in electronic health records do not provide the cognitive support necessary for nurses’ handoffs on medical and surgical units: insights from interviews and observations. Health Informatics J. 17(3), 2011, 209–223.

56.

Harris, A, McGregor, J, Perencevich, E, et al.: The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 13, 2006, 16–23.

57.

Ramsay, C, Matowe, L, Grill, R, Grimshaw, J, Thomas, R: Interrupted time series designs in health technology assessment: lessons from two systematic reviews of behavior change strategies. Int J Technol Assess. 19(4), 2003, 613–623.

58.

Lee, H, Monk, T: Using regression discontinuity design for program evaluation. American Statistical Association–Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section . 2008, ASA, Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/.

59.

Shadish, WR, Cook, TD, Campbell, DT: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. 2002, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

60.

Pitt, L, Watso, NR, Kavan, C: Service quality: a measure of information systems effectiveness. MIS Quart. 19(2), 1995, 173–188.

61.

Sauro, J: Measuring usability with the system usability scale (SUS). Measuring Usability LLC http://www.measuringusability.com/sus.php, 2012, February 2, 2011. Accessed September 27.

62.

Bangor, A, Kortum, P, Miller, JT: An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int J Hum-Comput Int. 24(6), 2008, 574–594.

63.

In Durland, M, Fredericks, K (Eds.): New Directions in Evaluation: Social Network Analysis. 2005, Jossey-Bass/AEA, Hoboken, NJ.

64.

Benham-Hutchins, MM, Effken, JA: Multi-professional patterns and methods of communication during patient handoffs. Int J Med Inform. 79(4), 2010, 252–267.

Discussion Questions

1. Of the levels of theory discussed in this chapter, what level would be most appropriate for evaluation of electronic health records? Would the level of theory be different if the intervention was for an application targeting a new scheduling system in a clinic? Why?

2. What is the difference between program evaluation and program evaluation research?

3. Assume that you are conducting an evaluation of a new decision support system for preventative alerts. What kind of designs would you use in a program evaluation study?

4. Using the life cycle as a framework, explain when and why you would use a formative or summative evaluation approach.

5. What are the basic differences between a research study and a program evaluation?

6. Review the following article: Harris A, McGregor J, Perencevich E, et al. The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:16-23. Explain how you might apply these research designs in structuring a program evaluation.

Case Study

A 410-bed hospital has been using a homegrown provider order entry system for 5 years. It has recently decided to put in bar code administration software to scan medications at the time of delivery in order to decrease medical error. The administration is concerned about medication errors, top-level administration is concerned about meeting The Joint Commission accreditation standards, and the IT department is worried that the scanners may not be reliable and may break, increasing their costs. The plan is to have a scanner in each patient's room; nurses will scan the medication when they get to the room and also scan their own badges and the patient's arm band. The application makes it possible to print out a list of the patients with their scan patterns and the nurses sometimes carry this printout because patient's arm bands can be difficult to locate or nurses do not want to disturb patients while they are sleeping. The bar code software was purchased from a vendor and the facility has spent about a year refining it. The IT department is responsible for implementation and has decided that it will implement each of the four inpatient settings one at a time at 6-month intervals.

The hospital administration wants to conduct an evaluation study. You are assigned to be the lead on the evaluation.

Discussion Questions

1. What is the key evaluation question for this project?

2. Who are the stakeholders?

3. What level of theory is most appropriate?

4. What are specific elements to measure by stakeholder group?