Advertisement

Journal of Medical Systems

, Volume 11, Issue 2–3, pp 137–147 | Cite as

Initial impact of a clinical laboratory computer system

Themes common to expectations and actualities
  • Bonnie Kaplan
Articles

Abstract

A longitudinal study is being conducted of a clinical laboratory computer information system's impact. This paper reports on effects that laboratory directors anticipated prior to installation, and effects reported by laboratory technologists 7 months postimplementation. Primary changes caused by the computer system were increases in the amount of paper work performed by technologists, and improvements in laboratory results reporting. The system generally was well accepted, but laboratory technologists differed in their responses to it. Technologists in some laboratories focused on work increases, whereas in other laboratories they emphasized improved information flow. The paper considers how changes in processes and outcomes of work might affect responses to a computer system. It also considers the implementation process, and suggests some areas where management could benefit from an improved understanding of responses to a computer information system.

Keywords

Information System Longitudinal Study Computer System Paper Work Clinical Laboratory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dowling, A. F., Jr., Do hospital staff interfere with computer system implementation?Health Care Manage. Rev. 5:23–32, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ball, M. J., Why do physicians resist computers?National Report on Computers and Health, 6–8, 13 February, 1981.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simborg, D. W. and Whiting-O'Keefe, Q. E., Evaluation methodology for ambulatory care information systems.Med. Care 20:255–265, 1982.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kjerulff, K. H., and Counte, M. A., Measuring attitudes toward computers: Two approaches.SCAMC 8:529–535, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Counte, M. A., et al., Implementation of a medical information system: Evaluation of adaptation.Health Care Manage. Rev. 8:25–33, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kjerulff, K. H., et al., Predicting employee adaptation to the implementation of a medical information system.SCAMC 6:392–397, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krobock, J. R., A taxonomy: Hospital information systems evaluation methodologies.J. Med. Syst. 8:419–429, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dowling, A. F., Jr., Medically oriented computer-based information systems.Med. Care 20:253–254, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischer, P. J., et al., User reactions to PROMIS: Issues related to acceptability of medical innovations.SCAMC 4:1722–1730, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lundsgaarde, H. P., Fischer, P. J., and Steele, D. J.,Human problems in computerized medicine. Publications in Anthropology, No. 13, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas, 1981.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brooks, R. C., Casey, I. J., and Blackmon, P. W., Jr.,Evaluation of the Air Force Clinical Laboratory Automation Systems (AFCLAS) at Wright-Patterson USAF Medical Center, Vol. I: Summary HDSN-77-4 (NTIS No. AD-A043 664);Vol. II: Analysis, HDSN-77-5 (NTIS No. AD-A043 665). Analytic Services, Arlington, Virginia, 1977.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alexander, M. J., and Siegel, C., Opinions and feelings: The validity of attitudes toward computers.SCAMC 8:540–542, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siegel, C., et al., Evaluation of a computerized drug review system: Impact, attitudes, and interactions.Comput. Biomed. Res. 17:419–435, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmitz, H. H., Productivity effectiveness: It can be done in the health care field.Proc. Soc. Manage. Inform. Syst. 9:253–258, 1977.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flagle, C. D., Operations research with hospital computer systems.Hospital Computer Systems (M. F. Collen, ed.), Wiley, New York, 1974, pp. 418–430.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paplanus, S. H., Clinical pathology:Computer applications in clinical practice: An overview (D. Levinson, ed.), Macmillan, New York 1985, pp. 118–122.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lincoln, T. L., and Korpman, R. A., Computers, health care, and medical information science.Sci. Am. 210:257–263, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis, J. W., Clinical laboratory information systems.Proc. IEEE 67:1229–1300, 1979.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fleck, A., et al., Experience with the introduction and routine operation of a computer-based reporting system in a clinical biochemistry laboratory.Int. J. Bio-Med. Comput. 5:189–202, 1974.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murphy, J. T.,Getting the facts: A fieldwork guide for evaluators and policy analysis Goodyear, Santa Monica, 1980.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dexter, L. A.,Elite and specialized interviewing Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois, 1970.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaplan, B., and Nobel, D., An interdisciplinary approach to user oriented interactive laboratory computer system development.Proc. Am. Assoc. Med. Syst. Informatics (AAMSI) 1:69–73, 1982.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M.,Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods Sage, Beverly Hills, 1984; Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L.,The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Aldine, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaplan, B., Impact of a clinical laboratory computer system: Users' perceptions.Medinfo 86: Fifth World Congress on Medical Informatics (R. Salamon, B. Blum, and M. J. Jørgensen, eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986, pp. 1057–1061.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Robertson, E. A., The role of computers in laboratory medicine: Clerks, tools, or consultants?SCAMC 1:6–7, 1977.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kaplan, B., Duchon, D., and Katerberg, R., Effects of a computer system on perceptions and work in clinical laboratories (preliminary results). Research seminar presented at the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Cincinnati, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bonnie Kaplan
    • 1
  1. 1.From the Departments of Quantitative Analysis and Information Systems and of Pathology and Laboratory MedicineUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnati

Personalised recommendations