Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26369894›Full record

ReviewBMJ quality & safety2016

Measuring and improving patient safety through health information technology: The Health IT Safety Framework.

Hardeep Singh, Dean F Sittig

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ quality & safety, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

76 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Human factors methods for designing safe health information technology: what do the experts think?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Disposition at Equipoise: A Qualitative Study of Emergency Physicians' Decision-Making About Hospitalizing People With Dementia.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hardeep SinghHouston Veterans Affairs Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA, Houston, Texas, USA.
Dean F SittigUTHealth - Memorial Hermann Center for Healthcare Qualty and Safety, School of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5811-8915

Funding

Decision Making and Clinical Work of Test Result Follow-up in Health IT SettingsR01HS022087 · AHRQ · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI SINGH, HARDEEP · 2013 to 2016
$2.0M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS022087AHRQ HHS R01HS022087
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health information technology (health IT) has potential to improve patient safety but its implementation and use has led to unintended consequences and new safety concerns. A key challenge to improving safety in health IT-enabled healthcare systems is to develop valid, feasible strategies to measure safety concerns at the intersection of health IT and patient safety. In response to the fundamental conceptual and methodological gaps related to both defining and measuring health IT-related patient safety, we propose a new framework, the Health IT Safety (HITS) measurement framework, to provide a conceptual foundation for health IT-related patient safety measurement, monitoring, and improvement. The HITS framework follows both Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) and sociotechnical approaches and calls for new measures and measurement activities to address safety concerns in three related domains: 1) concerns that are unique and specific to technology (e.g., to address unsafe health IT related to unavailable or malfunctioning hardware or software); 2) concerns created by the failure to use health IT appropriately or by misuse of health IT (e.g. to reduce nuisance alerts in the electronic health record (EHR)), and 3) the use of health IT to monitor risks, health care processes and outcomes and identify potential safety concerns before they can harm patients (e.g. use EHR-based algorithms to identify patients at risk for medication errors or care delays). The framework proposes to integrate both retrospective and prospective measurement of HIT safety with an organization's existing clinical risk management and safety programs. It aims to facilitate organizational learning, comprehensive 360 degree assessment of HIT safety that includes vendor involvement, refinement of measurement tools and strategies, and shared responsibility to identify problems and implement solutions. A long term framework goal is to enable rigorous measurement that helps achieve the safety benefits of health IT in real-world clinical settings.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyElectronic Health RecordsHumansInformation DisseminationMedical InformaticsQuality ImprovementUnited StatesInformation technologyPatient safetyPerformance measuresQuality improvement methodologiesQuality measurement

Identifiers

PMID26369894
PMCPMC4819641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.