Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2006; 45(01): 10-18
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634031
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

CSI-ISC

Concepts for Smooth Integration of Health Care Information System Components into Established Processes of Patient Care
S. Garde
1   University of Heidelberg, Department of Medical Informatics, Heidelberg, Germany
2   Central Queensland University, Health Informatics Research Group, Faculty of Informatics and Communication, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
,
A. C. Wolff
1   University of Heidelberg, Department of Medical Informatics, Heidelberg, Germany
,
U. Kutscha
1   University of Heidelberg, Department of Medical Informatics, Heidelberg, Germany
3   University of Heidelberg, Center for Information Management, Heidelberg, Germany
,
T. Wetter
1   University of Heidelberg, Department of Medical Informatics, Heidelberg, Germany
,
P. Knaup
1   University of Heidelberg, Department of Medical Informatics, Heidelberg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 13 August 2004

accepted: 12 June 2005

Publication Date:
06 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: The introduction of information system components (ISCs) usually leads to a change in existing processes, e.g. processes of patient care. These processes might become even more complex and variable than before. An early participation of end users and a better understanding of human factors during design and introduction of ISCs are key factors for a successful introduction of ISCs in health care. Nonetheless no specialized methods have been developed until now to systematically support the integration of ISCs in existing processes of patient care while taking into account these requirements. In this paper, therefore, we introduce a procedure model to implement Concepts for Smooth Integration of ISCs (CSI-ISC).

Methods: Established theories from economics and social sciences have been applied in our model, among them the stress-strain-concept, the contrastive task analysis (KABA), and the phase model for the management of information systems.

Results: CSI-ISC is based on the fact that while introducing new information system components, users experience additional workload. One essential aim during the introduction process therefore should be to systematically identify, prioritize and ameliorate workloads that are being imposed on human beings by information technology in health care. To support this, CSI-ISC consists of a static part (workload framework) and a dynamic part (guideline for the introduction of information system components into existing processes of patient care).

Conclusions: The application of CSI-ISC offers the potential to minimize additional workload caused by information system components systematically. CSI-ISC rationalizes decisions and supports the integration of the information system component into existing processes of patient care.

Keywords

Information systems - information management - processes of patient care - systems integration
 

  • References

  • 1 Dadam P, Reichert M, Kuhn K. Clinical Workflows – The Killer Application for Processoriented Information Systems? 4th Int’l Conf on Business Information Systems (BIS’2000) . Poznan, Poland: 2000: 36-59.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW. The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust 1995; 163: 458-71.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Coiera E. When conversation is better than computation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000; 7 (03) 277-86.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wiegand A. Ärztliche Versorgung: Frühzeitige Signale für den drohenden Ärztemangel. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2002; 99 (20) A-1349.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pinikahana J, Happell B. Stress, burnout and job satisfaction in rural psychiatric nurses: a Victorian study. Aust J Rural Health 2004; 12 (03) 120-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Howard SK, Gaba DM. Trainee fatigue: are new limits on work hours enough?. CMAJ 2004; 170 (06) 975-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Matsumoto M, Okayama M, Kajii E. Rural doctors’ satisfaction in Japan: a nationwide survey. Aust J Rural Health 2004; 12 (02) 40-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Teich JM. Clinical information systems for integrated healthcare networks. Proc Amia Symp 1998: 19-28.
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Berg M. Medical work and the computer-based patient record: a sociological perspective. Methods Inf Med 1998; 37 (03) 294-301.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bleich HL, Slack WV. Designing a hospital information system: a comparison of interfaced and integrated systems. MD Comput 1992; 9 (05) 293-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kuhn KA, Giuse DA. From hospital information systems to health information systems. Problems, challenges, perspectives. Methods Inf Med 2001; 40 (04) 275-87.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 van der Lei J. Information and communication technology in health care: do we need feedback?. Int J Med Inf 2002; 66 (01) (03) 75-83.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Berg M. Patient care information systems and health care work: a sociotechnical approach. Int J Med Inf 1999; 55 (02) 87-101.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lorenzi NM, Riley RT. Managing change: an overview. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000; 7 (02) 116-24.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Vimarlund V, Timpka T. Design participation as an insurance: risk-management and end-user participation in the development of information systems in healthcare organizations. Methods Inf Med 2002; 41 (01) 76-80.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Beuscart-Zéphir MC, Anceaux F, Crinquette V, Renard JM. Integrating user's activity modeling in the design and assessment of hospital electronic patient records: the example of anesthesia. Int J Med Inf 2001; 64 (02) (03) 157-71.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 OMG. UML Resource Page. Object Management Group. 2005 http://www.uml.org (11.03.05)
    PubMed
  • 18 Herrmann T, Hoffmann M, Loser K-U, Moysich K. Semistructured models are surprisingly useful for user-centered design. Designing Cooperative Systems. Coop 2000. Sophia-Antipolis; France: 2000: 159-74.
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Maij E, van Reijswoud VE, Toussaint PJ, Harms EH, Zwetsloot-Schonk JH. A process view of medical practice by modeling communicative acts. Methods Inf Med 2000; 39 (01) 56-62.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Scheer A-W. ARIS – Modellierungsmethoden, Metamodelle, Anwendungen. Berlin: Springer; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Avison DE, Fitzgerald G. Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools. 3rd Edition. London: McGraw-Hill; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Royce WW. Managing the Development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. Proc IEEE WESTCON, LosAngeles, CA 1970: Ch3
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Sommerville I. Software Engineering. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Mills HD. The Management of Software Engineering. Part I: Principles of Software Engineering. IBM Systems Journal 1980; 19 (04) 414-20.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Beck K. Extreme Programming Explained. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Boehm B. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. IEEE Computer 1988; 21 (05) 61-72.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Winter A, Brigl B, Wendt T. Modeling hospital information systems. Part 1: The revised three-layer graph-based meta model 3LGM2 . Methods Inf Med 2003; 42 (05) 544-51.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ammenwerth E, Ehlers F, Eichstadter R, Haux R, Pohl U, Resch F. Systems analysis in health care: framework and example. Methods Inf Med 2002; 41 (02) 134-40.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ammenwerth E, Buchauer A, Haux R. A Requirements Index for Information Processing in Hospitals. Methods Inf Med 2002; 41 (04) 282-8.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Wetter T. To decay is system: New work starts when you think you are done IT in Health Care: Sociotechnical Approaches. Second International Conference (ITHC 2004), Portland, OR, 13.-14.9.2004
  • 31 ISO 10075. Ergonomic principles related to mental work-load – General terms and definitions
    PubMed
  • 32 Rohmert W. Das Belastungs-Beanspruchungs- Konzept. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaften 1984; 38: 193-200.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Nachreiner F, Schultetus W. Standardization in the Field of Mental Stress – the DIN EN ISO 10075 Series Standards. Translation by the German Commission for Occupational Health and Safety (KAN). Source of the German original: DIN-Mitteilungen 2002; 81 (08) 519-33.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Dunckel H, Volpert W, Zölch M, Kreutner U, Pleiss C, Hennes K. Kontrastive Aufgabenanalyse im Büro – Der KABA-Leitfaden. Stuttgart: Teubner; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Dunckel H. Contrastive task analysis. In: Landau K, Rohmert W. (eds.). Recent developments in job analysis. London: Taylor & Francis; 1989: 125-36.
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Knaup P, Haux R, Haber A, Lagemann A, Leiner F. Teaching the fundamentals of information systems management in health care – Lecture and practical training for students of Medical Informatics (Heidelberg/Heilbronn). Int J Med Inf 1998; 50 (01) (03) 195-205.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Wiedemann T, Knaup P, Bachert A, Creutzig U, Haux R, Schilling F. Computer-aided Documentation and Therapy Planning in Pediatric Oncology. In: Cesnik B, McCray AT J.-R. S . (eds). Medinfo 1998. Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress on Medical Informatics. Amsterdam: IOS; 1998: 1306-9.
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Garde S, Baumgarten B, Basu O, Graf N, Haux R, Herold R, Kutscha U, Schilling F, Selle B, Spiess C, Wetter T, Knaup P. A metamodel of chemotherapy planning in the multihospital/multi-trial-center-environment of pediatric oncology. Methods Inf Med 2004; 43 (02) 171-83.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 40 OMG. Unified Modeling Language Specification, v1.5. Object Management Group. 2003 http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/apps/doc?formal/03-03-01.pdf (13.08.04)
    PubMed
  • 41 Boehm B. Industrial Software Metrics Top 10 List. IEEE Software 1987; 4 (05) 84-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Reed WJ. The Pareto, Zipf and other power laws. Economic Letters 2001; 74 (01) 15-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Vegoda P. Introducing the IHE (Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise) concept. J Healthc Inf Manag 2002; 16 (01) 22-4.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Keil M, Tiwana A, Bush A. Reconciling user and project manager perceptions of IT project risk: a Delphi study. Info Systems J 2002; 12: 103-19.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Johnson J. Turning Chaos into Success. Software Magazine 1999; 19: 30-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Marinakis HA, Zwemer Jr FL. An inexpensive modification of the laboratory computer display changes emergency physicians’ work habits and perceptions. Ann Emerg Med 2003; 41 (02) 186-90.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Poon EG, Kuperman GJ, Fiskio J, Bates DW. Realtime notification of laboratory data requested by users through alphanumeric pagers. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002; 9 (03) 217-22.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Ammenwerth E, Graber S, Herrmann G, Burkle T, Konig J. Evaluation of health information systems – problems and challenges. Int J Med Inf 2003; 71 (2-3) 125-35.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar