Assessing Features of Laboratory Information System in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 2014

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 1. Assistant Professor, Ph.D. in Health information management, Department of Medical Records And Health information Technology, School of paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of medical sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 2. PhD in Health information management, Deputy of Research & Technology, Ministry of Health, Treatment and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran

3 Bachelor of Science in Health Information Technology, Falsafi Hospital& Maternity, Gorgan,Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Ph.D. in Health information management, Department of Medical Records And Health information Technology, School of paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of medical sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Purpose:
One of the subsystems of information system health is a laboratory information system (LIS) which is used to order tests, help processing of taken samples, receive the results of analyzer and provide reports. Despite advantages, there are difficulties in LIS implementation. Therefore, this study assesses abilities and features of teaching hospital’s LIS in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in the year 2014.
Methods:
This descriptive-sectional study was conducted on the laboratory Information System of teaching hospitals of Mashhad University in 2014. Through literature review, using health information system evaluation indicators of Ministry of Health and Medical Education (3/4ed) and surveying final user opinion; necessary features of laboratory Information System was specified. According to the determined features in checklist format, teaching hospitals of Mashhad University was assessed. Descriptive statistics were used to analysis the data.
Results:
In general, LISs of teaching hospitals of Mashhad University have 69. 09 percent of the determined features. These features classified in three groups (a) the Laboratory processes (b) samples and tests and (c) financial and management reports. The findings showed that LISs had 72% of features related to laboratory process, 71. 4% of features related to test and samples and 62.5% of features related to financial and management reports. Laboratory process showed the maximum features and financial and management reports had the minimum features.
Conclusion:
With regard to findings, the conditions of the laboratory Information System of teaching hospitals of Mashhad University are relatively appropriate. In order to improve the laboratory services quality, it is recommended that features such as communication with other information system and laboratory test`s quality control included in the system and Assign more priority to the groups of patients with special diseases.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ajami S, Tavakoli Moghadam O. The study of information management system of medical records office in Kashani hospital based on the existing standards. Health Inf Manage 2006; 3(1): 63-72. [Persian]
  2. Agharezaei Zh. Developing a Clinical Decision Support System for reducing the probability of Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Venous Thrombosis and assessing the physicians and the nurses attitude about the system [diseration]. Tehran, Iran: School of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology; 2012: 150. [Persian].
  3. Hamborg KC, Vehse B, Bludau HB. Questionnaire based usability evaluation of hospital information systems. Electronic journal of information systems evaluation 2004; 7(1): 21-30.
  4. Kazmierczak SC. Laboratory quality control: using patient data to assess analytical performance. Clin Chem Lab Med 2003; 41(5): 617-27.
  5. Snydman LK, Harubin B, Kumar S, Chen J, Lopez RE, Salem DN. Voluntary electronic reporting of laboratory errors: an analysis of 37,532 laboratory event reports from 30 health care organizations. Am J Med Qual 2012; 27(2): 147-53.
  6. Leen TK, Erdogmus D, Kazmierczak S, editors. Statistical error detection for clinical laboratory tests. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; 2012.
  7. Mc Clatchy KD. Clinical Laboratory Medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2002.
  8. Evaluation Framework for Hospital Information Systems (HIS). Office of Statistics and Information Technology [internet], Tehran: Ministry of Health and Medical Education; 2010 [cited 2012 Oct 23]. Available from: http: // www. behdasht. gov. ir/ uploads/101_1475_HIS_Evaluation.pdf.  [Persian]
  9. Wolper LF. Health Care Administration: Planning, Implementing and Managing Organized Delivery System. 4th ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bertlett; 2004.
  10. Tietz NW. Foundamentals of Clinical Chemistry. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1987.
  11. Harrison JP, McDowell GM. The role of laboratory information systems in healthcare quality improvement. International journal of health care quality assurance 2008; 21(7): 679-91.
  12. Park WS, Yi SY, Kim SA, Song JS, Kwak YH. Association between the implementation of a laboratory information system and the revenue of a general hospital. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005; 129(6): 766-71.
  13. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Laboratory Information System [internet]. Wikipedia 2009. [Cited 2009 July 28]. Available from: .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/laboratory_information_system.
  14. Henry BJ, Davey R, Herman CJ, McPherson RA, Pincus MR, Threatte GA, et al. Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods. 20th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 2001.
  15. American Society of Cytopathology. Cervical Cytology Practice Guideline [internet]. New York: American Society of Cytopathology 2000 [cited 2000 Nov 10]. Available from: http://www. cytopathology.org/website/article.asp?id=388.
  16. Wyatt J, Wyatt S. When and how to evaluate health information systems? Int J Med Inform 2003; 69(2): 251-9.
  17. Brender J. Handbook of Evaluation Methods for Health Informatics. United States of America: Elsevier; 2006.
  18. Thyvalikakath TP, Monaco V, Thambuganipalle HB, Schleyer T. A usability evaluation of four commercial dental computer-based patient record systems. J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139(12): 1632-42.
  19. Asadi F, Moghaddasi H, Mastaneh Z. Situation Analysis of Hematology Information Systems in 80Educational - Therapeutic Hospital Laboratories of Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences.Health Information Management 2009; 6(1): 21. [Persian]
  20. Wager KA, Lee DBA FW, Glaser JP, Burns LR. Managing Health Care Information Systems: A Practical Approach for Health Care Executives.United States of America: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
  21. Blaya JA, Shin SS, Yale G, Suarez C, Asencios L, Contreras C, et al. Electronic laboratory system reduces errors in National Tuberculosis Program: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2010; 14(8): 1009-15.
  22. Doreen N, Kayla G, Donald M, et al. Toward an evaluation framework for electronic health records initiatives: A proposal for an evaluation framework. Health and the Information Highway Division, Canada: Health; 2004.
  23. Carraro P, Plebani M. Errors in a Stat Laboratory: Types and Frequencies 10 Years Later. Clin Chem. 2007; 53(10): 1338-42.
  24. Kaplan LA, Kazmierczak E. Clinical chemistry: theory, analysis, correlation: 4nd ed. Mosby; 2003.
  25. Yazdian MR. Introduction to Laboratory. Tehran: Omid Publication Office; 1997. [Persian]
  26. O’Brien JA. Introduction to Information Systems. 9th ed. Columbus, OH: McGraw- Hill; 200.
Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation
Volume 5, Issue 3
October 2016
Pages 24-33

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics