Identifying a Clinical Informatics or Electronic Health Record Expert Witness for Medical Professional Liability Cases

Author:

Sittig Dean F.12,Wright Adam3

Affiliation:

1. School of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, United States

2. Informatics-Review LLC, Lake Oswego, Oregon, United States

3. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States

Abstract

Abstract Background The health care field is experiencing widespread electronic health record (EHR) adoption. New medical professional liability (i.e., malpractice) cases will likely involve the review of data extracted from EHRs as well as EHR workflows, audit logs, and even the potential role of the EHR in causing harm. Objectives Reviewing printed versions of a patient's EHRs can be difficult due to differences in printed versus on-screen presentations, redundancies, and the way printouts are often grouped by document or information type rather than chronologically. Simply recreating an accurate timeline often requires experts with training and experience in designing, developing, using, and reviewing EHRs and audit logs. Additional expertise is required if questions arise about data's meaning, completeness, accuracy, and timeliness or ways that the EHR's user interface or automated clinical decision support tools may have contributed to alleged events. Such experts often come from the sociotechnical field of clinical informatics that studies the design, development, implementation, use, and evaluation of information and communications technology, specifically, EHRs. Identifying well-qualified EHR experts to aid a legal team is challenging. Methods Based on literature review and experience reviewing cases, we identified seven criteria to help in this assessment. Results The criteria are education in clinical informatics; clinical informatics knowledge; experience with EHR design, development, implementation, and use; communication skills; academic publications on clinical informatics; clinical informatics certification; and membership in informatics-related professional organizations. Conclusion While none of these criteria are essential, understanding the breadth and depth of an individual's qualifications in each of these areas can help identify a high-quality, clinical informatics expert witness.

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Subject

Health Information Management,Computer Science Applications,Health Informatics

Reference32 articles.

1. A statewide assessment of electronic health record adoption and health information exchange among nursing homes;E L Abramson;Health Serv Res,2014

2. Trending health information technology adoption among New York nursing homes;E L Abramson;Am J Manag Care,2014

3. Adoption of health information technology among US nursing facilities;J R Vest;J Am Med Dir Assoc,2019

4. Implications of an emerging EHR monoculture for hospitals and healthcare systems;R Koppel;J Am Med Inform Assoc,2015

5. AMIA Board white paper: definition of biomedical informatics and specification of core competencies for graduate education in the discipline;C A Kulikowski;J Am Med Inform Assoc,2012

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3