No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background Evaluating health information system (HIS) quality is strategically advantageous for improving the quality of patient care. Nevertheless, few systematic studies have reported what methods, such as standards, processes, and tools, were proposed to evaluate HIS quality. Objective This study aimed to identify and discuss the existing literature that describes standards, processes, and tools used to evaluate HIS quality. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review using review guidelines focused on software and systems. We examined seven electronic databases—Scopus, ACM (Association for Computing Machinery), ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, and PubMed—to search for and select primary studies. Results Out of 782 papers, we identified 17 (2.2%) primary studies. We found that most of the primary studies addressed quality evaluation from a management perspective. On the other hand, there was little explicit and pragmatic evidence on the processes and tools that allowed for the evaluation of HIS quality. Conclusions To promote quality evaluation of HISs, it is necessary to define mechanisms and methods that operationalize the standards in HISs. Additionally, it is necessary to create metrics that measure the quality of the most critical components and processes of HISs.

BACKGROUND Evaluating Health Information System (HIS) quality is strategically advantageous for improving patient care quality. Nevertheless, there is little research evidence identifying and describing what standards, processes, and tools are used to evaluate HIS quality. OBJECTIVE This study aims to illustrate, detail, and discuss the current scenario regarding the standards, norms, processes, and tools used to evaluate HIS quality. METHODS We conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) using review guidelines focused on software and systems. We examined seven electronic databases (Scopus, ACM, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplorer, the Web of Science and PubMed) to search and select primary studies. Three researchers and three collaborators participated in the review and quality assessment process of the studies. RESULTS We identified 17 primary studies that have been published in journals and conferences. We found that most of the primary studies address quality evaluation from a management perspective. Second, there is little explicit and pragmatic evidence on the processes and tools that allow evaluation of HIS quality. CONCLUSIONS To promote quality evaluation of HISs, it is necessary to define mechanisms and methods that operationalize the standards and norms of HISs. Additionally, it is necessary to create metrics that measure the quality of the most critical components and processes of HISs. CLINICALTRIAL Does not apply to our study