Comparing a Japanese and a German Hospital Information System

F. Jahn; L. Ißler; A. Winter; K. Takabayashi

doi:10.3414/ME09-01-0023

Methods of Information in Medicine, Table of Contents

Methods Inf Med 2009; 48(06): 531-539
DOI: 10.3414/ME09-01-0023

Original Articles

Schattauer GmbH

Comparing a Japanese and a German Hospital Information System

Assessing Structural Quality by 3LGM² Models

Authors

F. Jahn

¹Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
L. Ißler

²Systemantics Gmb H, Aachen, Germany
A. Winter

¹Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
K. Takabayashi

³Department of Medical Informatics and Management, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, Japan

Abstract

Summary

Objectives: To examine the architectural differences and similarities of a Japanese and German hospital information system (HIS) in a case study. This cross-cultural comparison, which focuses on structural quality characteristics, offers the chance to get new insights into different HIS architectures, which possibly cannot be obtained by inner-country comparisons.

Methods: A reference model for the domain layer of hospital information systems containing the typical enterprise functions of a hospital provides the basis of comparison for the two different hospital information systems. 3LGM² models, which describe the two HISs and which are based on that reference model, are used to assess several structural quality criteria. Four of these criteria are introduced in detail.

Results: The two examined HISs are different in terms of the four structural quality criteria examined. Whereas the centralized architecture of the hospital information system at Chiba University Hospital causes only few functional redundancies and leads to a low implementation of communication standards, the hospital information system at the University Hospital of Leipzig, having a decentralized architecture, exhibits more functional redundancies and a higher use of communication standards.

Conclusions: Using a model-based comparison, it was possible to detect remarkable differences between the observed hospital information systems of completely different cultural areas. However, the usability of 3LGM² models for comparisons has to be improved in order to apply key figures and to assess or benchmark the structural quality of health information systems architectures more thoroughly.

Keywords

Hospital information systems - health information systems - comparison - architectural models - structural quality

Full Text

References

References
1 Wyatt JC, Spiegelhalter D. Evaluating medical expert systems: what to test and how?. Medical Informatics 1990; 15 (03) 205-217.
2 Friedman CP, Owens DK, Wyatt JC. Evaluation and Technology Assessment. In: Shortliffe EH. et al. (eds). Biomedical Informatics Computer Applications in Health Care and Biomedicine. New York: Springer; 2006
3 Winter AF, Ammenwerth E, Bott OJ, Brigl B, Buchauer A, Graeber S. et al. Strategic Information Management Plans: The basis for systematic information management in hospitals. Int J Med Inform 2001; 64 2–3 99-109.
4 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; 5: 544-551.
5 Blobel B. Educational Challenge of Health Information Systems’ Interoperability. Methods Inf Med 2007; 46: 52-56.
6 Wendt T, Haeber A, Brigl B, Winter A. Modeling Hospital Information Systems (Part 2): Using the 3LGM²; Tool for Modeling Patient Record Management. Methods Inf Med 2004; 3: 256-267.
7 Staemmler M. Modeling a health telematics network: does the 3LGM² approach assist in its management and operation?. Stud Health Technol Inform 2006; 124: 691-696.
8 Burke DE, Wang BBL, Wan TTH, Diana ML. Exploring Hospitals’ Adoption of Information Technology. Journal of Medical Systems 2002; 26 (04) 349-355.
9 Haux R, Winter A, Ammenwerth E, Brigl B. Strategic Information Management in Hospitals. An Introduction to Hospital Information Systems. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2004
10 Van Den Bosch B, Bellon E, De Deurwaerder A, Vanautgaerden M, Bangels M. Recommendations and quality criteria for hospital information systems. Federal Public Service of Belgium, Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, 2002 https://portal.health.fgov.be/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/INTERNET_PG/HOMEPAGE_MENU/GEZONDHEIDZORG1_MENU/AUTOMATSER ING1_MENU/HOPITAUX1_MENU/HOPTAUX1_DOCS/HIS_V1S_EN.PDF last access on 2009-03-17.
11 Hasselbring W. Information System Integration. Communications of the ACM 2000; 43 (06) 33-38.
12 Winter A, Brigl B, Haux R, Ißler L, Strübing A. Ontology-Based Assessment of Functional Redundancy in Health Information Systems. In: MoDELS 2008 satellite proceedings. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2009. In print.
13 Brigl B, Huebner-Bloder G, Wendt T, Haux R, Winter A. Architectural Quality Criteria for Hospital Information Systems. AMIA 2005 Symposium Proceedings; 2005 pp 81-85.
14 Karp RM. Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems. In: Miller RE, Thatcher JW. editors. Complexity of Computer Computations. New York: Plenum; 1972. pp 85-103.
15 Huebner-Bloder G, Ammenwerth E, Winter A, Brigl B. Specification of a Reference Model for the Domain Layer of Hospital Information Systems. Connecting Medical Informatics and Bio-Informatics; 2005 pp 497-502.
16 Ammenwerth E, Buchauer A, Haux R. A Requirements Index for Information Processing in Hospitals. Methods Inf Med 2002; 41 (04) 282-288.
17 Harmon SY. Evaluating and comparing information systems. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1998; 1: 1009-1014.
18 Spewak SH, Hill SC. Enterprise Architecture Planning. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1992
19 Takabayashi K. From Marco Polo Islands. Methods Inf Med 2007; 46 (06) 669-670.
20 Tellis WM, Andriole KP. Finding the optimal picture archiving and communication system (PACS) architecture: a comparison of three PACS designs. J Digit Imaging. 2001; 14 2 Suppl 1 72-76.
21 Jaana M, Ward MM, Paré G, Wakefield DS. Clinical information technology in hospitals: A comparison between the state of Iowa and two provinces in Canada. Int J Med Inform 2005; 74: 719-731.
22 Jha AK, Doolan D, Grandt D, Scott T, Bates DW. The use of health information technology in seven nations. Int J Med Inform 2008; 77 (12) 848-854.
23 Clayton PD, Narus SP, Huff S, Pryor TA, Haug PJ, Larkin T, Matney S, Evans RS, Rocha BH, Bowes WA, Halston ET, Gundersen ML. Building a comprehensive clinical information system from components The approach at Intermountain Health Care. Methods Inf Med 2003; 1 (42) 1-7.
24 Ißler L. Informationsverarbeitung im Informationsmanagement. Dissertation, University of Leipzig; 2008. – Available only in German.
25 Ammenwerth E, Ehlers F, Hirsch B, Gratl G. HIS-Monitor: An approach to assess the quality of information processing in hospitals. Int J Med Inform 2007; 76: 216-225.