Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Healthcare Engineering
Volume 2, Issue 3, Pages 365-388
Research Article

Quality of Electronic Health Records - Coverage of Potential Information Weaknesses by Major EHR Quality Seals

Samrend Saboor,1 Alexander Hoerbst,2 and Elske Ammenwerth1

1Institute for Health Information Systems, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics, and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, Hall in Tirol, Austria
2Research Division eHealth and Telemedicine, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics, and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum 1, Hall in Tirol, Austria

Received 1 October 2010; Accepted 1 June 2011

Copyright © 2011 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. F. Burns, Information for Health: An information strategy for the modern NHS, 1998- 2005. A national strategy for local implementation. 2006.
  2. S. Saboor and E. Ammenwerth, “Categorizing communication errors in integrated hospital information systems,” Methods Inf Med, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 203–10, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  3. CCHIT, Get involved with the Certification Commission. 2010 Accessed June 14, 2011.
  4. M. Leavitt and M. E. O'Kane, Joint Statement from the National Committee for Quality Assurance and the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology. 2005.
  5. Public Law 111-5. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 2009
  6. CCHIT, Certification Handbook – Preliminary ARRA, 2011 Certification Program, 2009.
  7. A. Hörbst, Grundlagen der Qualitätszertifizierung von Diensten im Rahmen der Elektronischen Gesundheitsakte, in Institute for Health Information Systems. 2008, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology Hall in Tyrol. p. 321.
  8. EuroRec, Articles of Association. 2006., Accessed June 14, 2011.
  9. J. Devlies, The EuroRec Seal 2010, 2009.
  10. S. Dwyer, “A personalized view of the history of PACS in the USA,” in Proceedings of the SPIE: Medical Imaging 2000: PACS Design and Evaluation: Engineering and Clinical Issues, San Diego, CA, USA, 2000.
  11. ACR/NEMA, DICOM Homepage. 2008. Available from: Accessed June 14, 2011.
  12. HL7, Health Level 7. 2008., Accessed June 14, 2011.
  13. E. Coiera, “When conversation is better than computation,” JAMIA, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 277–286, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  14. R. Haux et al., “Information processing in healthcare at the start of the third Millennium: potential and limitations,” Methods Inf Med, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 156–62, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  15. P. Mayring, Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse - Grundlagen und Techniken, Beltz Verlag, Weinheim und Basel, 8 edition, 2000.
  16. P. Mayring, Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung : eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken, 5., überarb. Aufl, Beltz, Psychologie-Verl.Union. 170 S, Weinheim, 2002.
  17. J. D. Lian, I. C. Lin, and H. C. Wu, “Case report: Taiwan's experience in adopting IHE technical framework to integrate systems,” Stud Health Technol Inform, vol. 122, p. 877, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  18. M. E. Blado and A. Tomlinson, “Monitoring the accuracy of a PACS image database,” J Digit Imaging, vol. 15 Suppl 1, pp. 87–95, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  19. P. M. Kuzmak and R. E. Dayhoff, “Minimizing Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Modality Worklist patient/study selection errors,” J Digit Imaging, vol. 14, no. 2 Suppl 1, pp. 153–7, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  20. H. König and K. J. Klose, “Modelling of radiological services in the context of a hospital information system: does the DICOM standard meet the requirements?” Radiologie, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 872–82, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  21. J. Bortz and N. Döring, Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 3 edition, 2003.
  22. J. Gläser and G. Laudel, Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 1 edition, 2004.
  23. A. Hoerbst and E. Ammenwerth, “Electronic health records. A systematic review on quality requirements,” Methods Inf Med, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 320–36, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  24. epSOS, About epSOS., 2011. Accessed June 14, 2011.
  25. HITCH, HITCH - Welcome to the HITCH Project!. 2011. Accessed June 14, 2011.
  26. IHE International, About IHE., 2008. Accessed June 14, 2011.