Do Beliefs About Hospital Technologies Predict Nurses’ Perceptions of Their Ability to Provide Quality Care? A Study in Two Pediatric Hospitals

  • Ben-Tzion Karsh
  • Kamisha Escoto
  • Samuel Alper
  • Richard Holden
  • Matthew Scanlon
  • Kathleen Murkowski
  • Neal Patel
  • Theresa Shalaby
  • Judi Arnold
  • Rainu Kaushal
  • Kathleen Skibinski
  • Roger Brown
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4557)


The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that nurse perceptions of technology they use in practice would affect their perception that they were able to provide high quality patient care. A survey assessing the variables was administered to 337 pediatric nurses from two academic freestanding pediatric hospitals in the US. Two separate equations were constructed, one to test whether technology perceptions affected individual quality of care and the other to test whether technology perceptions affected quality of care provided by the nursing unit. Nurse confidence in their ability to use hospital technology and their beliefs that the technologies were easy to use, useful, and fit their tasks are important predictors of nurse beliefs that they are able to provide quality care to their patients.


quality of care automation information technology self-efficacy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Institute of Medicine: Patient Safety: Achieving a New Standard for Care. National Academies Press, Washington DC (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hall, L.M., Doran, D.: Nurse staffing, care delivery model, and patient care quality. Journal of Nursing Care. Quality 19, 27–33 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McNally, K.M., Page, M.A., Sunderland, B.V.: Failure-model and effects analysis in improving a drug distribution system. American Journal of Health System Pharmacist 54, 171–177 (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wolf, L., Potter, P., Sledge, J., Boxerman, S., Grayson, D., Evanoff, B.: Describing nurses’ work: Combining quantitative and qualitative analysis. Human Factors 48, 5–14 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ebright, P., Patterson, E., Chalko, B., Render, M.: Understanding the complexity of registered nurse work in acute care settings. Journal of Nursing Administration 33, 630–638 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Institute of Medicine: To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. National Academy Press, Washington DC (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Institute of Medicine: Institute of Medicine: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academy Press, Washington DC (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Institute of Medicine: Preventing Medication Errors. National Academy Press, Washington DC (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shojania, K.G., Duncan, B.W., McDonald, K.M., Wachter, R.M. (eds.): Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Leapfrog Group: The Leapfrog Group for patient safety: rewarding higher standards (Accessed March 6, 2004), Available at
  11. 11.
    Merli, R., Stickler, M.: E-prescriptions promise patient safety, higher drug sales. (Accessed March 6, 2004), Available at
  12. 12.
    Institute for Safe Medication Practices: ISMP survey shows drug companies providing fewer unit dose packaged medications (March 6, 2002 ISMP Medication Safety Alert) (Accessed March 6, 2004) (2002), Available at
  13. 13.
    Karsh, B.: Beyond usability for patient safety: designing effective technology implementation systems. Quality and Safety in Healthcare 13, 388–394 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karsh, B.: A conceptual framework for understanding the safety implications of bar code enabled point of care (BPOC) systems. In (eds.): 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Las Vegas (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karsh, B., Alper, S.J., Holden, R.J., Or, K.L.: A human factors engineering paradigm for patient safety – designing to support the performance of the health care professional Quality and Safety in Healthcare 15, i59–i65 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karsh, B., Holden, R.: New technology implementation in health care. In: Carayon P. (eds.): Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Patient Safety (in Press, 2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karsh, B., Scanlon, M.: Using bar code technology for medication administration: special human factors considerations for pediatric populations. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Healthcare Systems Ergonomics and Patient Safety, pp. 135–138 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bates, D.W.: Using information technology to reduce rates of medication errors in hospitals. British Medical Journal 320, 780–791 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bates, D.W., Cohen, M., Leape, L.L., Overhage, J.M., Shabot, M.M., Sheridan, T.: Reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology.[see comment]. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 8, 299–308 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bates, D.W., Gawande, A.A.: Patient safety: Improving safety with information technology New England. Journal of Medicine 348, 2526–2534 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaushal, R., Barker, K.N., Bates, D.W.: How can information technology improve patient safety and reduce medication errors in children’s health care? Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 155, 1002–1007 (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaushal, R., Bates, D.W.: Information technology and medication safety: what is the benefit? Quality & Safety in Health Care. 11, 261–265 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kuperman, G.J., Gibson, R.F.: Computer physician order entry: benefits, costs, and issues. Annals of Internal Medicine 139, 31–39 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Han, Y.Y., Carcillo, J.A., Venkataraman, S.T., Clark, R.S.B., Watson, R.S., Nguyen, T.C., Bayir, H., Orr, R.A.: Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system Pediatrics, vol. 116, pp. 1506–1512 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koppel, R., Metlay, J.P., Cohen, A., Abaluck, B., Localio, A.R., Kimmel, S.E., Strom, B.L.: Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. Journal of the American Medical Association 293, 1197–1203 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nebeker, J.R., Hoffman, J.M., Weir, C.R., Bennett, C.L., Hurdle, J.F.: High rates of adverse drug events in a highly computerized hospital Archives of Internal Medicine, 165, 1111–1116 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patterson, E.S., Rogers, M.L., Chapman, R.J., Render, M.L.: Compliance with intended use of bar code medication administration in acute and long-term care: An observational study Human Factors, 48, 15–22 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thompson, D.A., Duling, L., Holzmueller, C.G., Dorman, T., Lubomski, L.H., Dickman, F., Fahey, M., Morlock, L.L., Wu, A.W., Pronovost, P.J.: Computerized physician order entry, a factor in medication errors: descriptive analysis of events in the intensive care unit safety reporting system. Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management 12, 407–412 (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lynn, M.R., Moore, K.: Relationship between traditional quality indicators and perceptions of care. Seminars for Nurse Managers 5, 187–193 (1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Williams, A.: The delivery of quality nursing care: A grounded theory study of the nurse’s perspective. Journal of Advanced Nursing 27, 808–816 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shortell, S.M., Zimmerman, J.E., Rousseau, D.M., Gillies, R.R., Wagner, D.P., Draper, E.A., Knaus, W.A., Duffy, J.: The Performance of Intensive-Care Units - Does Good Management Make a Difference Medical Care, vol. 32, pp. 508–525 (1994)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Mis. Quarterly 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Venkatesh, V.: Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research 11, 342–365 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46, 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Mis Quarterly 27, 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Venkatesh, V., Speier, C., Morris, M.G.: User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: Toward an integrated model. Decision Sciences 33, 297–316 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I.: Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technolgy innovation. Information Systems Research 2, 192–222 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Ackerman, P.L.: A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 83, 33–60 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Taylor, S., Todd, P.: Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience. Mis Quarterly 19, 561–570 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lessler, J.T., Forsyth, B.H.: A Coding System for Appraising Questionnaires. In: Schwarz, N., Sudman, S. (eds.) Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research, pp. 259–292. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA (1996)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Presser, S., Blair, J.: Survey Pretesting: Do Different Methods Produce Different Results? In: Marsden, P.V. (ed.) Sociological Methodology, pp. 73–104. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R.: Survey Methodology. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben-Tzion Karsh
    • 1
  • Kamisha Escoto
    • 2
  • Samuel Alper
    • 1
  • Richard Holden
    • 1
  • Matthew Scanlon
    • 3
  • Kathleen Murkowski
    • 4
  • Neal Patel
    • 5
  • Theresa Shalaby
    • 6
  • Judi Arnold
    • 6
  • Rainu Kaushal
    • 7
  • Kathleen Skibinski
    • 8
  • Roger Brown
    • 9
  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WIUS
  2. 2.Division of Health Services Research and Policy School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MNUS
  3. 3.Department of Pediatrics, Division of Critical Care, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WIUS
  4. 4.Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WIUS
  5. 5.Division of Pediatric Critical Care and Anesthesia, Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital, Nashville, TennesseeUS
  6. 6.Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital, Nashville, TennesseeUS
  7. 7.Department of Public Health, Weill Medical College, Cornell University, New York, New YorkUS
  8. 8.School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WIUS
  9. 9.School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WIUS

Personalised recommendations