HIT and MIS: Implications of health information technology and medical information systems

Communications of the ACM

Volumn 48, Issue 10, 2005, Pages 69-74

  Goldschmidt, Peter G ^a,b  

^a World Development Group   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DELIVERY SYSTEM; HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (HIT); MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

HEALTH CARE; INVESTMENTS; REENGINEERING; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 33745183324     PISSN: 00010782     EISSN: 00010782     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (10)

1. Brailer D.J. and Terasawa E.L. Use and adoption of computer-based patient records. Oakland, CA. California HealthCare Foundations, 2003.
2. Chin, T. Technology valued, but implementing it in practice is slow. American Medical News (Jan. 19, 2004).
3. Goldschmidt, P.G., et al. A comprehensive study of the ethical, legal and social implications of advances in biomedical and behavioral research and technology: Summary of the final report. Baltimore, Policy Research Incorporated, 1977.
4. Henley R.R. and Wiederhold, G. An analysis of automated ambulatory medical record systems. AARMS Study Group, UCSF, June 1975.
5. Institute of Medicine. The computer-based electronic medical record: An essential technology for healthcare. NAP, Washington, DC, 1991 (revised 1997).
6. Is IT the cure? Economist (May 8, 2003).
7. Moore, R. EMRs delivery benefits, but physician buyers are wary. Nashville Business Journal (Mar. 7, 2005).
8. Rash, M.C. Privacy concerns hinder electronic medical records. The Business Journal of the Greater Triad Area (Apr. 4, 2005).
9. Riley, D.L. Business models for cost effective use of health information technologies: Lessons learned in the CHCS-II project. Studies in Health Technology Information 92 (2003), 157-165.
10. Thompson, T. and Brailer, D. Health IT strategic framework. DHHS, Washington, DC, 2004.