Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Functionality of hospital information systems: results from a survey of quality directors at Turkish hospitals

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

We aimed to determine availability of core Hospital Information Systems (HIS) functions implemented in Turkish hospitals and the perceived importance of these functions on quality and patient safety.

Methods

We surveyed quality directors (QDs) at civilian hospitals in the nation of Turkey. Data were collected via web survey using an instrument with 50 items describing core functionality of HIS. We calculated mean availability of each function, mean and median values of perceived impact on quality, and we investigated the relationship between availability and perceived importance.

Results

We received responses from 31% of eligible institutions, representing all major geographic regions of Turkey. Mean availability of 50 HIS functions was 65.6%, ranging from 19.6% to 97.4%. Mean importance score was 7.87 (on a 9-point scale) ranging from 7.13 to 8.41. Functions related to result management (89.3%) and decision support systems (52.2%) had the highest and lowest reported availability respectively. Availability and perceived importance were moderately correlated (r = 0.52).

Conclusion

QDs report high importance of the HIS functions surveyed as they relate to quality and patient safety. Availability and perceived importance of HIS functions are generally correlated, with some interesting exceptions. These findings may inform future investments and guide policy changes within the Turkish healthcare system.
Financial incentives, regulations around certified HIS, revisions to accreditation manuals, and training interventions are all policies which will help integrate HIS functions to support quality and patient safety in Turkish hospitals.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Terms such as Hospital Information System (HIS), Electronic Medical Record (EMR), Electronic Health Record (EHR), and Patient Health Record (PHR) are used interchangeably in the literature. We have tried to use the term Hospital Information System (HIS) consistently throughout this paper unless it is necessary or relevant to differentiate terms.
 
2
These terms are translated from Turkish responses “var”, “yok”, and “fikrim yok”.
 
Literature
1.
2.
IOM. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 2001.
3.
IOM. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 1999.
4.
5.
Abbott P, Taylor LA. The role of health information Technology in Improving Healthcare Quality and Patient Safety: Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing; 2007. p. 1–4.
6.
Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, Morton SC, Shekelle PG. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:742–52.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Chassin MR, Galvin RW. The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on health care quality. JAMA. 1998;280:1000–5.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Nohr C, Andersen SK, Bernstein K, Bruun-Rasmussen M, Vingtoft S. Diffusion of electronic health records--six years of empirical data. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129:963–7.PubMed
10.
Urowitz S, Wiljer D, Apatu E, Eysenbach G, Delenardo C, Harth T, Pai H, Leonard KJI. Canada ready for patient accessible electronic health records? A national scan. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:1472–6947.CrossRef
11.
Kaipio J, Laaveri T, Hypponen H, Vainiomaki S, Reponen J, Kushniruk A, Borycki E, Vanska J. Usability problems do not heal by themselves: national survey on physicians' experiences with EHRs in Finland. Int J Med Inform. 2017;97:266–81.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
14.
15.
Marca G, Perez A, Blanco-Garcia MG, Miravalles E, Soley P, Ortiga B. The use of electronic health records in Spanish hospitals. Him J. 2014;43:37–44.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Vafaee A, Vahedian M, Esmaeily H, Kimiafar K. Views of users towards the quality of hospital information system in training hospitals. Journal of research in health sciences. 2010;10:47–53.PubMed
17.
E.U. eHealth action plan 2012–2020-innovative healthcare for the 21st century. 2012.
18.
19.
Nguyen L, Bellucci E, Nguyen LT. Electronic health records implementation: an evaluation of information system impact and contingency factors. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83:779–96.CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Bates DW, Pappius EM, Kuperman GJ, Sittig D, Burstin H, Fairchild D, Brennan TA, Teich JM. Measuring and improving quality using information systems. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1998;2:814–8.
22.
23.
Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, Girosi F, Meili R, Scoville R, Taylor R. Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff. 2005;24:1103–17.CrossRef
24.
Sağıroğlu YÖ. Implementation difficulties of hospital information systems: a case study in a private Hospital in Turkey. İstanbul: Bogaziçi University; 2006.
25.
26.
David B, Tavenner M. The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:501–4.CrossRef
27.
28.
29.
Haux R, Winter A, Ammenwerth E, Brigl B. Strategic information Management in Hospitals. An introduction to hospital information systems. New York: Springer; 2004.CrossRef
30.
31.
Takeda H, Matsumura Y, Nakajima K, Kuwata S, Zhenjun Y, Shanmai J, Qiyan Z, Yufen C, Kusuoka H, Inoue M. Health care quality management by means of an incident report system and an electronic patient record system. Int J Med Inform. 2003;69:285–93.CrossRefPubMed
32.
WHO. Global diffusion of eHealth: making universal health coverage achievable. Report of the third global survey on eHealth. Genova: world health. Organization. 2016;
33.
34.
35.
Borycki EM, Newsham D, Bates DW. eHealth in North America. Yearb Med Inform. 2013;8:103–6.PubMed
36.
Hyppönen H, Kangas M, Reponen J, Nøhr C, Villumsen S, Koch S, Hardardottir GA, Gilstad H, Jerlvall L, Pehrsson T. Nordic eHealth benchmarking: Nordic Council of Ministers; 2015.
37.
WHO. Atlas of eHealth country profiles: the use of eHealth in support of universal health coverage: based on the findings of the third global survey on eHealth 2015. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. p. 2016.
38.
IOM. Key Capabilities of an electronic health record system letter report. USA: National Academy of Sciences; 2003.
39.
Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Donelan K, Rao SR, Ferris TG, Shields A, Rosenbaum S, Blumenthal D. Use of electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1628–38.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Davis DC, Thakkar M. Perceived level of benefits and risk Core functionalities of an EHR system. In: Joseph T, editor. Healthcare information systems and informatics: research and practices. New York: Information Science Publishing; 2008. p. 297–312.CrossRef
41.
TurkeyMoH. Healthcare quality standards-hospital. Ankara: Pozitif Matbaa; 2016.
42.
Taylan G, EB Bİ, Naldöken Ü. Determination of profiles of quality directors who work for Turkey Ministry of Health hospitals. In: Ünal D, Okumuş N, editors. VI International conference on healthcare performance and quality. Antalya, Turkey: Miki Matbaacılık San. ve Tic. Ltd. şti; 2016.
43.
44.
International JC. Joint commission international accreditation standards for hospitals. 5th ed: Joint Commission Resources; 2013.
45.
Glandon GL, Smaltz DH, Slovensky JD. Austin and Boxerman’s İnformation systems for healthcare. Chicago: AUPHA Health Administration Press; 2008.
46.
47.
48.
Ammenwerth E, Buchauer A, Bludau B, Haux R. Mobile information and communication tools in the hospital. Int J Med Inform. 2000;57:21–40.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Haun JN, Lind JD, Shimada SL, Martin TL, Gosline RM, Antinori N, Stewart M, Simon SR. Evaluating user experiences of the secure messaging tool on the veterans affairs’ patient portal system. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16
50.
Birkhead GS, Klompas M, Shah NR. Uses of electronic health records for public health surveillance to advance public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015;36:345–59.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Fox BI, Pedersen CA, Gumpper KF. ASHP national survey on informatics: assessment of the adoption and use of pharmacy informatics in U.S. hospitals-2013. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2015;72:636–55.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Fernandez-Aleman JL, Senor IC, Lozoya PA, Toval A. Security and privacy in electronic health records: a systematic literature review. J Biomed Inform. 2013;46:541–62.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Papoutsi C, Reed JE, Marston C, Lewis R, Majeed A, Bell D. Patient and public views about the security and privacy of electronic health records (EHRs) in the UK: results from a mixed methods study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2015; https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12911-015-0202-2.
54.
TurkeyMoH. Standards of accreditation in health, hospital kit – v1.1/2015. Ankara: Pozitif Printing Press Ltd. Co.; 2015.
55.
MoH. Tibbi Laboratuvarlar Yönetmeligi, vol. 28790: Resmi Gazete; 2013.
56.
MoH. Hastane Bilgi Yönetim Sistemleri Alim Kilavuzu. In: İvMİD B, editor. 5.1 ; 2010.
57.
Esatoğlu AE, Köksal A. Hastanelerde Bilgisayar Teknolojisinin Kullanımı. Ankara Üniversitesi. Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası. 2002;55:29–40.
58.
Reid JH. Patient safety: staff safety -- hand in hand? Journal of Perioperative Practice 2011;21:363.
59.
Hughes RG, Blegen MA. Medication administration safety. In: Hughes RG, editor. Patient safety and quality: an evidence-based handbook for nurses. Rockville (MD); 2008.
60.
IOM. Preventing medication errors. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2007.
61.
Backman C, Vanderloo S, Momtahan K, d'Entremont B, Freeman L, Kachuik L, Rossy D, Mille T, Mojaverian N, Lemire-Rodger G, et al. Implementation of an electronic data collection tool to monitor nursing-sensitive indicators in a large academic health sciences Centre. Nurs Leadersh. 2015;28:77–91.
62.
Silow-Carroll S, Edwards JN, Rodin D. Using electronic health records to improve quality and efficiency: the experiences of leading hospitals.: the Commonwealth Fund; 2012.
63.
64.
TurkeyMoH. Institutional performance and quality applications in healthcare. Ankara: Lazer Ofset; 2009.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
King J, Patel V, Jamoom EW, Furukawa MF. Clinical benefits of electronic health record use: national findings. Health Serv Res. 2014;49:392–404.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Petrides AK, Bixho I, Goonan EM, Bates DW, Shaykevich S, Lipsitz SR, Landman AB, Tanasijevic MJ, Melanson SE. The benefits and challenges of an interfaced electronic health record and laboratory information system: effects on laboratory processes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141:410–7.CrossRefPubMed
73.
Kruse CS, DeShazo J, Kim F, Fulton L. Factors associated with adoption of health information technology: a conceptual model based on a systematic review. JMIR Med Inform. 2014;2
74.
Berner ES. Clinical decision support systems: state of the art. AHRQ publication. 2009;90069
75.
76.
Levick DL, Stern G, Meyerhoefer CD, Levick A, Pucklavage D. Reducing unnecessary testing in a CPOE system through implementation of a targeted CDS intervention. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:1472–6947.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Functionality of hospital information systems: results from a survey of quality directors at Turkish hospitals
Publication date
01-12-2018
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0581-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Clinicians’ perceptions of usefulness of the PubMed4Hh mobile device application for clinical decision making at the point of care: a pilot study

Research article

Modeling EHR with the openEHR approach: an exploratory study in China

Correction

Correction to: A pattern learning-based method for temporal expression extraction and normalization from multi-lingual heterogeneous clinical texts

Research article

Metabolic syndrome in hypertensive women in the age of menopause: a case study on data from general practice electronic health records

Research article

A computational application for multi-skill nurse staffing in hospital units

Research article

The readiness of hospital pharmacists in Kuwait to practise evidence-based medicine: a cross-sectional study