Evaluating health information systems-related errors using the human, organization, process, technology-fit (HOPT-fit) framework

11Citations
Citations of this article
118Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Complex socio-technical health information systems (HIS) issues can create new error risks. Therefore, we evaluated the management of HIS-related errors using the proposed human, organization, process, and technology-fit framework to identify the lessons learned. Qualitative case study methodology through observation, interview, and document analysis was conducted at a 1000-bed Japanese specialist teaching hospital. Effective management of HIS-related errors was attributable to many socio-technical factors including continuous improvement, safety culture, strong management and leadership, effective communication, preventive and corrective mechanisms, an incident reporting system, and closed feedback loops. Enablers of medication errors include system sophistication and process factors like workarounds, variance, clinical workload, slips and mistakes, and miscommunication. The case management effectiveness in handling the HIS-related errors can guide other clinical settings. The potential of HIS to minimize errors can be achieved through continual, systematic, and structured evaluation. The case study validated the applicability of the proposed evaluation framework that can be applied flexibly according to study contexts to inform HIS stakeholders in decision-making. The comprehensive and specific measures of the proposed framework and approach can be a useful guide for evaluating complex HIS-related errors. Leaner and fitter socio-technical components of HIS can yield safer system use.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yusof, M. M., Takeda, T., Shimai, Y., Mihara, N., & Matsumura, Y. (2024). Evaluating health information systems-related errors using the human, organization, process, technology-fit (HOPT-fit) framework. Health Informatics Journal, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/14604582241252763

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free