Assessing STAMP EMR with Electronic Medical Record Related Incident Reports: Case Study: Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database

Mason-Blakley, Fieran; Habibi, Ryan; Weber, Jens H.; Price, Morgan

doi:10.1109/ichi.2017.97

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Medical error classifications have been developed using other approaches. The System Theoretic Accidents Models and Process framework has been used to classify medical errors in 3 broad categories: feedback, control action, and knowledge errors [ 25 ]. The Human Factors Classification Framework [ 26 ] has been adapted to health care to classify medical errors in 5 categories: decision errors, skill-based errors, perceptual errors, routine violations, and exceptional violations [ 27 , 28 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual Gaps Between Clinicians and Technologists on Health Information Technology-Related Errors in Hospitals: Observational Study

Ndabu¹,

Mulgund²,

Sharman³

et al. 2021

JMIR Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health information technology (HIT) has been widely adopted in hospital settings, contributing to improved patient safety. However, many types of medical errors attributable to information technology (IT) have negatively impacted patient safety. The continued occurrence of many errors is a reminder that HIT software testing and validation is not adequate in ensuring errorless software functioning within the health care organization. Objective This pilot study aims to classify technology-related medical errors in a hospital setting using an expanded version of the sociotechnical framework to understand the significant differences in the perceptions of clinical and technology stakeholders regarding the potential causes of these errors. The paper also provides some recommendations to prevent future errors. Methods Medical errors were collected from previous studies identified in leading health databases. From the main list, we selected errors that occurred in hospital settings. Semistructured interviews with 5 medical and 6 IT professionals were conducted to map the events on different dimensions of the expanded sociotechnical framework. Results Of the 2319 identified publications, 36 were included in the review. Of the 67 errors collected, 12 occurred in hospital settings. The classification showed the “gulf” that exists between IT and medical professionals in their perspectives on the underlying causes of medical errors. IT experts consider technology as the source of most errors and suggest solutions that are mostly technical. However, clinicians assigned the source of errors within the people, process, and contextual dimensions. For example, for the error “Copied and pasted charting in the wrong window: Before, you could not easily get into someone else’s chart accidentally...because you would have to pull the chart and open it,” medical experts highlighted contextual issues, including the number of patients a health care provider sees in a short time frame, unfamiliarity with a new electronic medical record system, nurse transitions around the time of error, and confusion due to patients having the same name. They emphasized process controls, including failure modes, as a potential fix. Technology experts, in contrast, discussed the lack of notification, poor user interface, and lack of end-user training as critical factors for this error. Conclusions Knowledge of the dimensions of the sociotechnical framework and their interplay with other dimensions can guide the choice of ways to address medical errors. These findings lead us to conclude that designers need not only a high degree of HIT know-how but also a strong understanding of the medical processes and contextual factors. Although software development teams have historically included clinicians as business analysts or subject matter experts to bridge the gap, development teams will be better served by more immersive exposure to clinical environments, leading to better software design and implementation, and ultimately to enhanced patient safety.

show abstract