Developing A Method to Evaluate Emergency Response Medical Information Systems

  • Ann Fruhling
  • Stacie Petter
Part of the Annals of Information Systems book series (AOIS, volume 19)


Emergency response medical information systems (ERMIS) are a specific type of medical information system used for communication and decision making during a crisis. Yet given the dependence on ERMIS during a crisis, these information systems are rarely evaluated to ascertain if the system is indeed successful. This research develops a method to evaluate the success of an ERMIS using a well-established research model as a guiding framework. We explain this method in the context of an ERMIS used in the diagnosis of pathogens in hospitals and state public health laboratories. We describe the insights obtained when using this method to evaluate emergency response medical information systems.


Emergency Response Medical Information Systems Information system evaluation IS Success 



The authors would like to thank Sandra Vlasnik and Gregory Hoff for their assistance in data collection. We would also like to thank Guy Pare and others that shared their insights into our work at the SIG eHealth workshop at the Americas Conference on Information Systems. In addition, we want to acknowledge the Nebraska State Public Health, Anthony Sambol, Assistant Director, and Karen Stiles for the ongoing support. This research was funded through a Nebraska Foundation grant.


  1. Ammenwerth E, Mansmann U, Iller C, Eichstadter R (2003) Factors affecting and affected by user acceptance of computer-based nursing documentation: results of a two-year study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 10(1):69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Briggs RO, Reinig BA, deVreede G-J (2008) The yield shift theory of satisfaction and its application to the IS/IT domain. J Assoc Inf Syst 9(5):267–293Google Scholar
  3. Burton-Jones A, Straub DW (2006) Reconceptualizing system usage: an approach and empirical test. MIS Quarterly 17(3):228–246Google Scholar
  4. Chang C-J, King J (2005) Measuring the performance of information systems: a functional scorecard. J Manag Inf Syst 22(1):85–115Google Scholar
  5. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of Use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3):319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeLone WH, McLean ER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res 3(1):60–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeLone WH, McLean ER (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manag Inf Syst 19(4):9–30Google Scholar
  8. Doll WJ, Deng XD, Raghunathan TS, Torkzadeh G, Xia WD (2004) The meaning and measurement of user satisfaction: a multigroup invariance analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. J Manag Inf Syst 21(1):227–262Google Scholar
  9. Fruhling A (2006) Examining the critical requirements, design approaches and evaluation methods for a public health emergency response system. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 18:431–450Google Scholar
  10. Fruhling A (2010) STATPack—an emergency response system for microbiology laboratory diagnostics and consultation. Adv Manag Inf Syst 16:123–149Google Scholar
  11. Gable GG, Chan T, Sedera D (2008) Re-conceptualizing information system success: the IS-impact measurement model. J Assoc Inf Syst 9(7):377–408Google Scholar
  12. Hsieh JJPA, Wang W (2007) Explaining employees’ extended Use of complex information systems. Eur J Inf Syst 16(3):216–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ives B, Olson M, Baroudi JJ (1983) The measurement of user information satisfaction. Commun ACM 26(10):785–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiang JJ, Klein G, Carr CL (2002) Measuring information system service quality: SERVQUAL from the other side. MIS Quarterly 26(2):145–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jick TD (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm Sci Q 24(4):602–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pare G, Lepanto L, Aubry D, Sicotte C (2005) Toward a multidimensional assessment of picture archiving and communication system success. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 21(4):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Petter S, Fruhling A (2011) Evaluating the success of an emergency response medical information system. Int J Med Inform 80(7):480–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Petter S, DeLone WH, McLean ER (2008) Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. Eur J Inf Syst 17(3):236–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Seddon P, Yip S-K (1992) An empirical evaluation of user information satisfaction (UIS) measures for use with general ledger accounting software. J Inf Syst 6(1):75–98Google Scholar
  20. Sedera W, Gable GG (2004) A factor and structural equation analysis of the enterprise systems success measurement model. Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Information Systems, 2004Google Scholar
  21. Sicotte C, Pare G, Kra Bini K, Moreault M-P, Laverdure G (2009) Virtual organization of hospital medical imaging: a user satisfaction survey. J Digit Imaging 23(6):689–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Straub DW (1989) Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quarterly 13(2):146–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Turoff M (2002) Past and future emergency response information systems. Commun Assoc Comput Mach 45(4):29–33Google Scholar
  24. Turoff M, Van de Walle B (2004) Preface to the special issue on emergency preparedness and response information systems. J Inf Technol Theory Appl 6(3):3–5Google Scholar
  25. van der Meijden MJ, Tange HJ, Troost J, Hasman A (2003) Determinants of success of inpatient clinical information systems: a literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 10(3):235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilson EV, Lankton NK (2004) Modeling patients’ acceptance of provider-delivered E-health. J Am Med Inform Assoc 11(4):241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wixom BH, Todd PA (2005) A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Inf Syst Res 16(1):85–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Fruhling
    • 1
  • Stacie Petter
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Interdisciplinary Informatics, College of Information Science & TechnologyUniversity of Nebraska at OmahaOmahaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Information Systems, Hankamer School of BusinessBaylor UniversityWacoUSA

Personalised recommendations