Health Information Technology in Long-Term Care: Potential for the Future

Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 379-380

  Little, Milta O ^a   Rantz, Marilyn ^b   Lynn, Gregory A ^b  

^a SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EDITORIAL; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; ELECTRONIC PRESCRIBING; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LONG TERM CARE; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; NURSING HOME; NURSING HOME PATIENT; PATIENT CARE; PHARMACIST; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; FORECASTING; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY;

FORECASTING; HUMANS; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; LONG-TERM CARE; MEDICAL INFORMATICS;

EID: 84961907979     PISSN: 15258610     EISSN: 15389375     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2016.02.029     Document Type: Editorial

References (14)

1. Degenholtz H., Resnick A., Lin M., Handler S. Development of an applied framework for understanding health information technology in nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2016, 17:434-440.
2. Gallagher M., Hares T., Spencer J., et al. The nominal group technique: A research tool for general practice?. Fam Pract 1993, 10:76-81.
3. Cantrill J.A., Sibbald B., Buetow S. The Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research. Int J Pharm Pract 1996, 4:67-74.
4. Kadam U.T., Jordan K., Croft P.R. A comparison of two consensus methods for classifying morbidities in a single professional group showed the same outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59:1169-1173.
5. Jones J., Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995, 311:376-380.
6. Magnus D., Rodgers S., Avery A.J. GPs' views on computerized drug interaction alerts: Questionnaire survey. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002, 27:377-382.
7. Weingart S.N., Toth M., Sands D.Z., et al. Physicians' decisions to override computerized drug alerts in primary care. Arch Intern Med 2003, 163:2625-2631.
8. Taylor L.K., Tamblyn R. Reasons for physician non-adherence to electronic drug alerts. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004, 107:1101-1105.
9. McCoy A.B., Thomas E.J., Krousel-Wood M., Sittig D.F. Clinical decision support alert appropriateness: A review and proposal for improvement. Ochsner J 2014, 14:195-202.
10. Nanji K.C., Slight S.P., Seger D.L., et al. Overrides of medication-related clinical decision support alerts in outpatients. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014, 21:487-491.
11. Slight S.P., Seger D.L., Nanji K.C., et al. Are we heeding the warning signs? Examining providers' overrides of computerized drug-drug interaction alerts in primary care. PLoS One 2013, 8:e85071.
12. Bryant A.D., Fletcher G.S., Payne T.H. Drug interaction alert override rates in the Meaningful Use era: No evidence of progress. Appl Clin Inform 2014, 5:802-813.
13. Coiera E., Tombs V. Communication behaviours in a hospital setting: An observational study. BMJ 1998, 316:673-676.
14. Department of Health and Human Services. Health IT Regulations and Legislation. Office of the National Coordinator 2016. Available at:. Accessed February 1, 2016. https://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/health-it-legislation.