A new approach in the evaluation of hospital information systems

Hospital information system (HIS) evaluation frameworks have largely been discussed in the literature. However, existing frameworks lack one important aspect: to what extent user expectations of HISs are met. In this study, user expectation data are collected by means of the 'expectation questionnaire'. The internal consistencies of the answers to the questionnaire are measured by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Fuzzy logic methodologies are used to evaluate the expectation variables in the proposed evaluation framework. The evaluation variables are not represented in the results equally; they are reflected by the weights assigned by the users. Our proposed framework provides the overall degree of to what extent the user expectations are met. It also gives the opportunity to analyze to what extent each expectation is met and the degree of to what extent different user groups' expectations are met. The proposed framework is not a rival of but is rather an alternative or complementary to the existing frameworks. It is a different approach and has a different computation methodology, supported by fuzzy logic. The acceptable meeting ratio depends on the evaluator; we do not propose a threshold.

A new approach in the evaluation of hospital information systems

Hospital information system (HIS) evaluation frameworks have largely been discussed in the literature. However, existing frameworks lack one important aspect: to what extent user expectations of HISs are met. In this study, user expectation data are collected by means of the 'expectation questionnaire'. The internal consistencies of the answers to the questionnaire are measured by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Fuzzy logic methodologies are used to evaluate the expectation variables in the proposed evaluation framework. The evaluation variables are not represented in the results equally; they are reflected by the weights assigned by the users. Our proposed framework provides the overall degree of to what extent the user expectations are met. It also gives the opportunity to analyze to what extent each expectation is met and the degree of to what extent different user groups' expectations are met. The proposed framework is not a rival of but is rather an alternative or complementary to the existing frameworks. It is a different approach and has a different computation methodology, supported by fuzzy logic. The acceptable meeting ratio depends on the evaluator; we do not propose a threshold.

___

  • N.F. Keizer, E. Ammenwerth, “The quality of evidence in health informatics: how did the quality of healthcare IT evaluation publications develop from 1982 to 2005?”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 77, pp. 41–49, 2008.
  • E. Ammenwerth, C. Iller, C. Mahler, “IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology and individuals: a fit framework and a case study”, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Vol. 6, pp. 1–13, 2005.
  • C. Despont-Gros, H. Mueller, C. Lovis, “Evaluating user interactions with clinical information systems: a model based on human–computer interaction models”, Journal of Biomedical Informatics, Vol. 38, pp. 244–255, 2005. M. Alshawi, Rethinking IT in Construction and Engineering: Organisational Readiness, New York, Taylor & Francis, 200
  • B. Hochstrasser, Justifying IT investments, In: L. Wilcocks, editor, Information Management: The Evaluation of Information Systems Investments, London, Chapman & Hall, pp. 151–171, 1994.
  • P.B. Seddon, S. Staples, R. Patnayakuni, M. Bowtell, “Dimensions of information systems success”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 2, pp. 1–61, 1999.
  • M.M. Yusof, J. Kuljis, A. Papzafeiropoulou, L.K. Stergioulas, “An evaluation framework for health information systems: human, organization and technology-fit factors (HOT-fit)”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 77, pp. 386–398, 2008.
  • N.T. Shaw, “CHEATS: a generic information communication technology (ICT) evaluation framework”, Computers in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 32, pp. 209–220, 2002.
  • D.R. Dixon, “The behavioral side of information technology”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 56, pp. 117–130, 1999.
  • A. Kazanjian, G.J. Green, “Beyond effectiveness: the evaluation of information systems using a comprehensive health technology assessment framework”, Computers in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 32, pp. 165–177, 2002.
  • R. Heeks, “Health information systems: failure, success and improvisation”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 75, pp. 125–137, 2006.
  • D.L. Goodhue, B.D. Klein, S.T. March, “User evaluations of IS as surrogates for objective performance”, Information and Management, Vol. 38, pp. 87–101, 2000.
  • F. Gremy, J.M. Fessler, J.M. Bonnin, “Information systems evaluation and subjectivity”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 56, pp. 13–23, 1999.
  • W.H. DeLone, E.R. McLean, “Measuring e-commerce success: applying the DeLone & McLean information systems success model”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 9, pp. 31–47, 2004.
  • A.L. Geers, P.E. Weiland, K. Kosbab, S. Landry, S.G. Helfer, “Goal activation, expectations, and the placebo effect”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 143–159, 2005.
  • D.W. Conrath, O.P. Mignen, “What is being done to measure user satisfaction with EDP/MIS”, Information and Management, Vol. 9, pp. 7–19, 1990.
  • D. Dubois, H. Prade, “When upper probabilities are possibility measures”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 49, pp. 65–74, 1992.
  • M.F. Chen, G.H. Tzeng, C.G. Ding, “Combining fuzzy AHP with MDS in identifying the preference similarity of alternatives”, Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 8, pp. 110–117, 2008.
  • C.T. Lin, Y.T. Chen, “Bid/no-bid decision making – a fuzzy linguistic approach”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, pp. 585–593, 2004.
  • M. Berg, “Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 64, pp. 143–156, 2001.