Assessment of Education and Research in Biomedical Informatics

Summary

Objectives

The existence and survival of university institutes is increasingly dependent on assessments of research and education. In many countries also departments of biomedical informatics are assessed at regular intervals, often as part of the review of a Medical or Health Sciences Faculty, or a Research School. The article underlines the importance of periodic evaluation of research and education in biomedical informatics.

Methods

Quality assessment, if done by an independent review committee of peers, is a suitable instrument to obtain insight into the quality and accountability of both education and research. Key instruments for the assessment of education and research are welldefined protocols that are used for self-assessment. These selfassessment reports form the inputs for the independent review committee.

Results

The outcomes of the assessments are directly related to the quality of research, which is visible in publications in peer-reviewed journals. Internal quality management tools contribute to a large extent to the improvement of the quality of education and research.

Conclusion

External assessment – review by peers – is increasingly used as the final step of an integral quality system for research and education. This is particularly important if the results of biomedical informatics R&D are to be applied in clinical practice. A positive outcome of an assessment can only be expected from a long-term investment in the quality of research and researchers who publish their results in peer-reviewed journals.

Keywords

Research - education - biomedicine - assessment - peer review - quality management

• References

• 1 See http://www.iso.org/iso
• 2 See, e.g. http://www.hero.ac.uk/uk/research http://www.qanu.nl http://www.stratresearch.se http://www.inserm.fr/fr/inserm/evaluation http://www.dfg.de/ranking
• 3 See http://www.fda.gov/oc/gcp
• 4 See http://www.htai.org
• 5 Yu VL, Buchanan BG, Shortliffe EH, Wraith SM, Davis R, Scott AC. et al. Evaluating the performance of a computer-based consultant. Comp Progr Biomed 1979; 09: 95-102. (This is early work, done in Stanford)
• 6 Shea S, DuMouchel W, Bahamonde L. A metaanalysis of 16 randomized controlled trials to evaluate computerbased clinical reminder systems for preventive care in the ambulatory setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996; 03: 399-409.
• 7 Miller RA, Pople Jr HE, Myers JD. INTERNIST-1, An Experimental Computer-based Diagnostic Consultant for General Internal Medicine. N Engl J Med 1982; 307: 468-76. (This is early work, done in Pittsburgh)
• 8 Krishna S, Balas EA, Spencer DC, Griffin JZ, Boren SA. Clinical trials of interactive computerized patient education: implications for family practice. J Fam Pract 1997; 45 (01) 25-33.
• 9 Tierney WM, McDonald CJ. Testing informatics innovations: the value of negative trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996; Sep-Oct; 03 (05) 358-9.
• 10 Dexter PD, Wolinsky FD, Gramelspacher GP, Zhou XH, Eckert GJ, Waisburd M. et al. Effectiveness of computer-generated reminders for increasing discussions about advance directives and completion of advance directive forms. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1998; 128: 102-10.
• 11 Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 1998; 280: 1360-1.
• 12 Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J. et al. Effects of Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes. A Systematic Review. JAMA 2005; 293: 1223-38.
• 13 Willems JL, Abreu-Lima C, Arnaud P, van Bemmel JH, Brohet C, Degani R. et al. The diagnostic performance of computer programs for the interpretation of electrocardiograms. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 1767-73.
• 14 Van der Lei J, Van der Does E, Man in ’t Veld AJ, Musen MA, Van Bemmel JH. Response of general practitioners to computer-generated critiques of hypertension therapy. Methods Inf Med 1993; 32: 146-53.
• 15 Van Wijk MA, van der Lei J, Mosseveld M, Bohnen AM, van Bemmel JH. Assessment of decision support for blood test ordering in primary care. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 274-81.
• 16 Ammenwerth E, De Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care: Trends in evaluation research 1982-2002. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 44-56.
• 17 See, e.g., National Academy of Science. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2004
• 18 www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/stw_esys/4assess.htm
• 19 See www.knaw.nl
• 20 See www.efqm.org
• 21 See www.nwo.nl
• 22 http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6