PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Yearb Med Inform 2018; 27(01): 079-082
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1667074
Section 2: Human Factors and Organizational Issues
Synopsis
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

Findings from the 2018 Yearbook Section on Human Factors and Organizational Issues

Sylvia Pelayo
1   Univ. Lille, INSERM, CHU Lille, CIC-IT /Evalab 1403 - Centre d'Investigation clinique, EA 2694, Lille, France
,
Johanna Kaipio
2   Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
,
Section Editors for the IMIA Yearbook Section on Human Factors and Organizational Issues › Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
29. August 2018 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Summary

Objective: To summarize significant research contributions published in 2017 on Human Factors and Organizational Issues (HFOI) in medical informatics.

Methods: An extensive search using PubMed/Medline and Web of Science® was conducted to identify the scientific contributions published in 2017 that HFOI issues in medical informatics. The selection process comprised three steps: (i) 15 candidate best papers out of 695 references were first selected by the two section editors, (ii) external reviewers from internationally renowned research teams reviewed each candidate best paper, and (iii) the final selection of five best papers was conducted by the editorial board of the Yearbook.

Results: The five best papers offer a glimpse of the quality and breadth of the work being conducted in the HFOI community.

Conclusion: The selection of the HFOI section of the 2018 IMIA Yearbook highlights a growing number of high quality studies. There are especially more studies interested in testing Human Factors and Ergonomics methods and demonstrating the benefits.

Keywords

Human factors - ergonomics - health information technology - usability - organizational issues
 

  • References

  • 1 Blijleven V, Koelemeijer K, Wetzels M, Jaspers M. Workarounds Emerging From Electronic Health Record System Usage: Consequences for Patient Safety, Effectiveness of Care, and Efficiency of Care. JMIR Hum Factors 2017; Oct 5; 4 (04) e27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ancker JS, Edwards A, Nosal S, Hauser D, Mauer E, Kaushal R. , with the HITEC Investigators. Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; Apr 10; 17 (01) 36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cresswell KM, Mozaffar H, Lee L, Williams R, Sheikh A. Safety risks associated with the lack of integration and interfacing of hospital health information technologies: a qualitative study of hospital electronic prescribing systems in England. BMJ Qual Saf 2017; Jul; 26 (07) 530-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Dufendach KR, Koch S, Unertl KM, Lehmann CU. A Randomized Trial Comparing Classical Participatory Design to VandAID, an Interactive CrowdSourcing Platform to Facilitate User- centered Design. Methods Inf Med 2017; Oct 26; 56 (05) 344-9
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Luna DR, Rizzato Lede DA, Otero CM, Risk MR, González Bernaldo de Quirós F. User-centered design improves the usability of drug-drug interaction alerts: Experimental comparison of interfaces. J Biomed Inform 2017; Feb; 66: 204-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brox E, Konstantinidis ST, Evertsen G. User-Centered Design of Serious Games for Older Adults Following 3 Years of Experience With Exergames for Seniors: A Study Design. JMIR Serious Games 2017; 5 (01) e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Petersen M, Hempler NF. Development and testing of a mobile application to support diabetes selfmanagement for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: a design thinking case study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17: 91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Horsky J, Drucker EA, Ramelson HZ. Higher accuracy of complex medication reconciliation through improved design of electronic tools. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; May; 25 (05) 465-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lyell D, Magrabi F, Raban MZ, Pont LG, Baysari MT, Day RO, Coiera E. Automation bias in electronic prescribing. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17: 28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Minotra D, Dain SL, Burns CM. Protocol for Usability Testing and Validation of the ISO Draft International Standard 19223 for Lung Ventilators. JMIR Res Protoc 2017; 6 (09) e166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Russ AL, Melton BL, Daggy JK, Saleem JJ. Pilot evaluation of a method to assess prescribers’ information processing of medication alerts. J Biomed Inform 2017; 66: 11-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gonser P, Fuchsberger T, Matern U. Usability Tests in Medicine: A Cost-Benefit Analysis for Hospitals Before Acquiring Medical Devices for Theatre. Surg Innov 2017; 24 (04) 343-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Richardson S, Mishuris R, O’Connell A, Feldstein D, Hessd R, Smith P. , et al. “Think aloud” and “Near live” usability testing of two complex clinical decision support tools. Int J Med Inform 2017; 106: 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Murphy AR, Reddy MC. Identifying patient-related information problems: A study ofinformation use by patient-care teams during morning rounds. Int J Med Inform 2017; 102: 93-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Snowden A, Kolb H. Two years of unintended consequences: introducing an electronic health record system in a hospice in Scotland. J Clin Nurs 2017; 26: 1414-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar