It appears to me that one possible assumption by the researchers who did
this study is that the system was equally suitable and appropriately
designed to assist the nurses and doctors with their task. It is possible
that the use and attitudes of the nurses and physicians was based on the
design of the system being more suited to automating secretarial work and
not clinical decision making and record keeping. It is possible that the
awareness of medical informatics was left out of this commercially available
system. It might have been designed by individuals who knew absolutely
little about what nurses and physicians really need in a system to make it
paper-less and for them to "trust" it to do their mission critical record.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Franklin Valier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <openhealth-list@minoru-development.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Attitudes of hospital workers towards electronic medical
records
The difficulty that I see with the article about use and attitudes to a
hospital information system by medical secretaries, nurses and physicians
deprived of the paper-based medical record: a case report is that there is
no way of being sure that the use and attitudes were the result of the
system or the design of the system. It is possible the "independent
variable, the system" was not well designed for the nurses and physicians
and was more focused on doing the appropriate tasks of secretarial work.
The "independent variable" i.e. the system was not controlled in the
experiment.
That is the limitation of the conclusions and generalizations of this
study. It does not make the study worthless, that just keeps it in
perspective to the methods that are used in science to discover "true"
knowledge.
Frank
Frank.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Churches" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <openhealth-list@minoru-development.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: Attitudes of hospital workers towards electronic medical
records
Adrian Midgley wrote:
Comments against this study seem to be based on scientific research
models.
Is it not engineering, rather than science?
Social engineering? Or <wink>, sociology (which is neither science nor
engineering)?
Tim C