ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Framework for key benchmarking indicators in hospital information system.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- From interface to outcome: a 4I framework for AI-linked functionality in electronic health records.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDeveloping key benchmarking indicators (KBIs) for Hospital Information Systems (HIS) has the potential to enhance operational efficiency and effectiveness, resulting in the successful achievement of hospital goals. This study endeavored to develop a comprehensive framework of KBIs for HIS to address the need for structured evaluation in healthcare systems.
methodsThis qualitative study was conducted at Ahvaz Jundishapour University of Medical Sciences' academic hospitals. The study comprised two distinct phases. In the initial phase, data collection involved purposive sampling with a snowball technique, consisting of 14 semi-structured interviews with health information technology, medical informatics, and health information management experts. During the second phase, benchmarking indicators were extracted through conventional content analysis and prioritized using two rounds of the Delphi technique.
resultsThe study identified three main themes and eight sub-themes, including Technical (software, hardware, architecture and user interface, and outputs), Human and Organizational (vendors, IT support, and HIS workflows), and Financial (costs). A total of 76 KBIs were developed and prioritized, with key indicators such as user-friendliness and response time scoring 100% in importance, while others like cost-effectiveness and interoperability quality scored 96.4% and 98.8%, respectively.
conclusionThe proposed framework incorporates essential benchmarking indicators intended to enhance HIS efficiency, effectiveness, and successful attainment of its objectives. These indicators may serve as a comprehensive tool for Health Information Technology managers to benchmark their HISs. Practical implications include the potential for hospital administrators to identify gaps in system performance, optimize resource allocation, and improve user satisfaction by applying the KBIs. The framework may also guide decision-making processes, supporting alignment with organizational goals and promoting the long-term sustainability of HIS implementations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.