Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38846365›Full record

ReviewDigital health

JCI, SKS için bir dizi standart ve gösterge önerisive HIMSS-EMRAM kalite değerlendirme modelleri.

Sinem Cece, İlker Köse

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sinem CeceDepartment of Management Information Systems, Ankara Medipol University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5421-4392
İlker KöseBilgisayar Bilimleri Bölümü, Alanya Üniversitesi, Alanya, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The Joint Commission International (JCI) and the Health Information Management System Society (HIMSS) are global accreditation groups for healthcare. JCI focuses on overall care quality, while HIMSS-Electronic Medical Record Adoption Model (EMRAM) looks at digital processes. Meanwhile, the Health Quality Standards (SKS) is Turkey's own system. It aligns with JCI and evaluates healthcare similarly. When a health institution wants to be accredited with one of these models, similar scope, process and criteria are repeatedly reviewed from different perspectives. However, it is not known whether the scope, process and criteria included in these models are related to the postmodern management approach (PMMA), which is one of today's business approaches. It is observed that today's businesses are dominated by PMMAs. Similarly, healthcare organizations are also influenced by PMMAs since they are qualified as businesses. Yöntemler: This study investigated the compatibility of the concepts, processes and criteria covered by SKS, JCI and HIMSS-EMRAM models with PMMAs. Using the Delphi technique, PMMAs were explained to subject-matter experts (SMEs) in the form of written texts delivered. SMEs evaluated whether the standards/criteria are compatible with PMMAs. During this evaluation, they examined whether the standard/criteria included in the relevant model are directly or indirectly indicative of these approaches. SMEs developed their standards/criteria for the approaches which no standards/criteria could be matched with. The binary pairwise comparison method was used to determine the weighted value of the proposed standards/criteria. Sonuçlar: SMEs proposed a total of 24 standards and 18 indicators for nine postmodern organizational management approaches. Conclusion: The literature presented a proposal for new standards and indicators. They would be unique. They would address how well these three models fit the PMMA.

Indexed as

accreditationHealth qualitymedical informaticspostmodernism

Identifiers

PMID38846365
PMCPMC11155322

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.