Confronting and Resolving an Ethical Dilemma Associated with a Practice Based Evaluation Using Observational Methodology of Health Information Technology

P.S. Sockolow; H.A. Taylor

doi:10.4338/ACI-2010-02-CR-0014

Applied Clinical Informatics, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Appl Clin Inform 2010; 01(03): 244-255
DOI: 10.4338/ACI-2010-02-CR-0014

Case Report

Schattauer GmbH

Confronting and Resolving an Ethical Dilemma Associated with a Practice Based Evaluation Using Observational Methodology of Health Information Technology

P.S. Sockolow

¹College of Nursing and Health Professions, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

,

H.A. Taylor

²Department of Health Policy and Management

³Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, Maryland

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Summary

As the adoption of health information technology (HIT) has escalated, efforts to evaluate its uptake have increased. The evaluation of HIT often requires direct observation of health care practitioners interacting with the system. When in the field, the evaluator who is not a trained health care provider may observe suboptimal use of the technology. If evaluators have plans to share the results of the evaluation at the conclusion of the study, they face a decision point about whether to disclose interim results and the implications of doing so. To provide HIT evaluators with guidance about what issues to weigh when observing the implementation of HIT, this paper presents a study of an actual case and discusses the following considerations: (1) whether the evaluation of HIT is considered to be human subject research; (2) if the evaluation is human subject research, whether the Institutional Review Board will consider it exempt from review or subjected to expedited or full review; and (3) how interim disclosure to the clinic management impacts the research study. The recommendations to evaluators include use of a protocol for interim disclosures to patients, clinicians, and/or clinical management for both quality assurance initiatives and human subjects research.

Keywords

Testing and evaluation - clinical information systems - ethics

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Goldzweig CL, Towfigh A, Maglione M, Shekelle PG. Costs and benefits of health information technology: New trends from the literature. Health Aff 2009; 28 (02) w282-w293.
2 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 (01) 44-56.
3 Yusof MM, Papazafeiropoulou A, Paul RJ, Stergioulas LK. Investigating evaluation frameworks for health information systems. Int J Med Inform 2008; 77 (06) 377-385.
4 Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E. et al. Systematic review: Impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144 (010) 742.
5 A web-based inventory of evaluation studies in medical informatics 1982-2005. Available at: http://evaldb.umit.at . Accessed Nov, 2008.
6 Goodman KW, Miller RA. Ethics and Health Informatics. In: Shortliffe EH. ditor. Biomedical Informatics: Computer Applications in Healthcare and Biomedicine. 2006th ed. New York: Springer; 2006. p. 379-402.
7 Koppel R, Wetterneck T, Telles JL, Karsh BT. Workarounds to barcode medication administration systems: Their occurrences, causes, and threats to patient safety. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; JulAug 15 (Suppl. 04) 408-23.
8 Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, Abaluck B, Localio AR, Kimmel SE. et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 2005; 293 (010) 1197-1203.
9 Campbell EM, Sittig DF, Ash JS, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (05) 547-556.
10 Pandiani JA, Banks SM, Schacht LM. Personal privacy versus public accountability: A technological solution to an ethical dilemma. J Behav Health Svcs and Res [serial online] 1998; 25 (04) 456-463. Available from: URL: http://www.springerlink.com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/home/main.mpx .
11 Aroskar MA. Anatomy of an ethical dilemma: The theory. Am J Nurs 1980; 80 (04) 658-660.
12 Mertens DM, Ginsberg PE. Chapter 11: Ethical Perspectives in Program Evaluation. The Handbook for Social Research Ethics. First ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2009. p. 170-83.
13 Morris M. Evaluation Ethics for Best Practices. New York: The Guilford Press; 2008
14 Fitzpatrick JL, Morris M. Current and Emerging Ethical Challenges in Evaluation. 1999
15 Newman DL, Brown RD. Chapter 4: A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions. Applied Ethics for Program Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1996. p. 91-119.
16 Ash JS, Sittig DF, Dykstra R, Campbell E, Guappone K. The unintended consequences of computerized provider order entry: Findings from a mixed methods exploration. Int J Med Inform 2009; 78 (Suppl. 01) S69-S76.
17 National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.. The Belmont report: ethical principals and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Commission. Bethesda, MD: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1978 Apr 18
18 Guiding Principles for Evaluators. http://eval.org/publications/guidingprinciples.asp. Available at: http://eval.org/publications/guidingprinciples.asp . Accessed May 28, 2010.
19 The Johns Hopkins Medicine Institutional Review Boards.. Organization policy on reports of unanticipated problems involving risks to participants or others (Policy No. 103.6(b)). Available at: http://irb.jhmi.edu/Policies/103_6b.html . Accessed Feb 22, 2010.
20 Miller RA, Gardner RM. Recommendations for responsible monitoring and regulation of clinical software systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997; 4 (06) 442.
21 Ash JS, Smith AC, Stavri PZ. Performing Subjectivist Studies in the Qualitative Traditions Responsive to Users. In: Friedman CP, Wyatt JC. editors. Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 2006. p. 267-300.
22 Friedman CP, Wyatt JC. Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics. New York: Springer; 2006
23 Ash JS. Request your insight on a moral quandary at a research site regarding an HIT implementation. 2008 Oct 14; personal communication.
24 Suermondt HJ, Evans RS, Ohno-Machado L. editors. A rapid assessment process for clinical informatics interventions. Biomedical and Health Informatics: From Foundations to Applications to Policy. 2008. Nov Wash, DC: AMIA; p. 26-30.
25 Berger RG, Kichak JP. Computerized Physician Order Entry: Helpful or Harmful?. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11 (02) 100-103.
26 Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST, Clark RS, Watson RS, Nguyen TC. et al. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 2005; 116 (06) 1506-1512.
27 Denham CR. TRUST: the 5 rights of the second victim. Patient Saf 2007; 3 (02) 107-119.
28 Ash JS, Sittig DF, Poon EG, Guappone K, Campbell E, Dykstra RH. The extent and importance of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14 (04) 415-423.
29 HHS/OHRP.. Protection of Human Subjects. 2009 Jan 15, 2009 http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm:Title 45, Part 46.
30 Casarett D, Karlawish JHT, Sugarman J. Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research. JAMA 2000; 283: 2275-2280.
31 Bellin E, Dubler NN. The quality-improvement research divide and the need for external oversight. Am J Public Health 2001; 91: 1512-1517.
32 Lynn J, Baily MA, Bottrell M, Jennings B, Levine RJ, Davidoff F. et al. The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 666-673.
33 Baily MA. Harming through protection?. NEJM 2008; 358: 768-769.
34 Kass NK, Pronovost PJ, Sugarman J, Groeschel CA, Lubomski LH, Faden R. Controversy and quality improvement: Lingering questions about ethics, oversight, and patient safety research. Joint Comm J Qual Saf 2008; 34: 349-353.
35 Miller FG, Emanuel EJ. Quality-Improvement research and informed consent. NEJM 2008; 358: 765-767.
36 Office of Human Research Protections.. Categories of research that may be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) through an Expedited Review Procedure. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/topics.html select: IRB; Expedited Review –1998 Revised Categories.
37 Shortell SM, Richardson WC. Evaluation Designs. Health Program Evaluation. The C V. Mosby Co.; 1978. p. 38.
38 McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S, van Haselen R, Griffin M, Fisher P. The Hawthorne effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 30.