<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com">
<title>Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association Review</title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com</link>
<description>Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association RSS feed -- recent Review articles</description>
<prism:eIssn>1527-974X</prism:eIssn>
<prism:publicationName>Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>1067-5027</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/3/413?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/3/423?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/6?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/13?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/22?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/31?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/39?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/121?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/6/732?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/6/738?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/5/544?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
<image rdf:resource="http://jamia.bmj.com/site/homepage/JAMIA_95x60.gif" />
</channel>
<image rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/site/homepage/JAMIA_95x60.gif">
<title>Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association</title>
<url>http://jamia.bmj.com/site/homepage/JAMIA_95x60.gif</url>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com</link>
</image>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/3/413?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Review of health information technology usability study methodologies]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/3/413?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Usability factors are a major obstacle to health information technology (IT) adoption. The purpose of this paper is to review and categorize health IT usability study methods and to provide practical guidance on health IT usability evaluation. 2025 references were initially retrieved from the Medline database from 2003 to 2009 that evaluated health IT used by clinicians. Titles and abstracts were first reviewed for inclusion. Full-text articles were then examined to identify final eligibility studies. 629 studies were categorized into the five stages of an integrated usability specification and evaluation framework that was based on a usability model and the system development life cycle (SDLC)-associated stages of evaluation. Theoretical and methodological aspects of 319 studies were extracted in greater detail and studies that focused on system validation (SDLC stage 2) were not assessed further. The number of studies by stage was: stage 1, task-based or user&ndash;task interaction, n=42; stage 2, system&ndash;task interaction, n=310; stage 3, user&ndash;task&ndash;system interaction, n=69; stage 4, user&ndash;task&ndash;system&ndash;environment interaction, n=54; and stage 5, user&ndash;task&ndash;system&ndash;environment interaction in routine use, n=199. The studies applied a variety of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Methodological issues included lack of theoretical framework/model, lack of details regarding qualitative study approaches, single evaluation focus, environmental factors not evaluated in the early stages, and guideline adherence as the primary outcome for decision support system evaluations. Based on the findings, a three-level stratified view of health IT usability evaluation is proposed and methodological guidance is offered based upon the type of interaction that is of primary interest in the evaluation.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Yen, P.-Y., Bakken, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-04-09T07:38:02-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000020</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2010-000020</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Unlocked]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Review of health information technology usability study methodologies]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>413</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>422</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/3/423?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The economics of health information technology in medication management: a systematic review of economic evaluations]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/3/423?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To conduct a systematic review and synthesis of the evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of health information technology (HIT) in the medication process.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>Peer-reviewed electronic databases and gray literature were searched to identify studies on HIT used to assist in the medication management process. Articles including an economic component were reviewed for further screening. For this review, full cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses and cost-benefit analyses, as well as cost analyses, were eligible for inclusion and synthesis.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>The 31 studies included were heterogeneous with respect to the HIT evaluated, setting, and economic methods used. Thus the data could not be synthesized, and a narrative review was conducted. Most studies evaluated computer decision support systems in hospital settings in the USA, and only five of the studied performed full economic evaluations.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>Most studies merely provided cost data; however, useful economic data involves far more input. A full economic evaluation includes a full enumeration of the costs, synthesized with the outcomes of the intervention.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>The quality of the economic literature in this area is poor. A few studies found that HIT may offer cost advantages despite their increased acquisition costs. However, given the uncertainty that surrounds the costs and outcomes data, and limited study designs, it is difficult to reach any definitive conclusion as to whether the additional costs and benefits represent value for money. Sophisticated concurrent prospective economic evaluations need to be conducted to address whether HIT interventions in the medication management process are cost-effective.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[O'Reilly, D., Tarride, J.-E., Goeree, R., Lokker, C., McKibbon, K. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-04-09T07:38:02-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000310</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2011-000310</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Editor''s choice]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The economics of health information technology in medication management: a systematic review of economic evaluations]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-05-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>423</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>438</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/6?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A systematic review of the psychological literature on interruption and its patient safety implications]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/6?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>To understand the complex effects of interruption in healthcare.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>As interruptions have been well studied in other domains, the authors undertook a systematic review of experimental studies in psychology and human&ndash;computer interaction to identify the task types and variables influencing interruption effects.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>63 studies were identified from 812 articles retrieved by systematic searches. On the basis of interruption profiles for generic tasks, it was found that clinical tasks can be distinguished into three broad types: procedural, problem-solving, and decision-making. Twelve experimental variables that influence interruption effects were identified. Of these, six are the most important, based on the number of studies and because of their centrality to interruption effects, including working memory load, interruption position, similarity, modality, handling strategies, and practice effect. The variables are explained by three main theoretical frameworks: the activation-based goal memory model, prospective memory, and multiple resource theory.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>This review provides a useful starting point for a more comprehensive examination of interruptions potentially leading to an improved understanding about the impact of this phenomenon on patient safety and task efficiency. The authors provide some recommendations to counter interruption effects.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>The effects of interruption are the outcome of a complex set of variables and should not be considered as uniformly predictable or bad. The task types, variables, and theories should help us better to identify which clinical tasks and contexts are most susceptible and assist in the design of information systems and processes that are resilient to interruption.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Li, S. Y. W., Magrabi, F., Coiera, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2011-12-10T07:38:52-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000024</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2010-000024</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A systematic review of the psychological literature on interruption and its patient safety implications]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>6</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>12</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/13?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in medical informatics: a systematic review of CONSORT adherence in RCTs on clinical decision support]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/13?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Introduction</st>
<p>The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) were published to standardize reporting and improve the quality of clinical trials. The objective of this study is to assess CONSORT adherence in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of disease specific clinical decision support (CDS).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>A systematic search was conducted of the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. RCTs on CDS were assessed against CONSORT guidelines and the Jadad score.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Result</st>
<p>32 of 3784 papers identified in the primary search were included in the final review. 181 702 patients and 7315 physicians participated in the selected trials. Most trials were performed in primary care (22), including 897 general practitioner offices. RCTs assessing CDS for asthma (4), diabetes (4), and hyperlipidemia (3) were the most common. Thirteen CDS systems (40%) were implemented in electronic medical records, and 14 (43%) provided automatic alerts. CONSORT and Jadad scores were generally low; the mean CONSORT score was 30.75 (95% CI 27.0 to 34.5), median score 32, range 21&ndash;38. Fourteen trials (43%) did not clearly define the study objective, and 11 studies (34%) did not include a sample size calculation. Outcome measures were adequately identified and defined in 23 (71%) trials; adverse events or side effects were not reported in 20 trials (62%). Thirteen trials (40%) were of superior quality according to the Jadad score (&ge;3 points). Six trials (18%) reported on long-term implementation of CDS.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>The overall quality of reporting RCTs was low. There is a need to develop standards for reporting RCTs in medical informatics.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Augestad, K. M., Berntsen, G., Lassen, K., Bellika, J. G., Wootton, R., Lindsetmo, R. O., Study Group of Research Quality in Medical Informatics and Decision Support (SQUID)]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2011-12-10T07:38:52-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000411</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2011-000411</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Unlocked]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in medical informatics: a systematic review of CONSORT adherence in RCTs on clinical decision support]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>13</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>21</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/22?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The effectiveness of integrated health information technologies across the phases of medication management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/22?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded an evidence report to address seven questions on multiple aspects of the effectiveness of medication management information technology (MMIT) and its components (prescribing, order communication, dispensing, administering, and monitoring).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and Methods</st>
<p>Medline and 11 other databases without language or date limitations to mid-2010. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing integrated MMIT were selected by two independent reviewers. Reviewers assessed study quality and extracted data. Senior staff checked accuracy.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Most of the 87 RCTs focused on clinical decision support and computerized provider order entry systems, were performed in hospitals and clinics, included primarily physicians and sometimes nurses but not other health professionals, and studied process changes related to prescribing and monitoring medication. Processes of care improved for prescribing and monitoring mostly in hospital settings, but the few studies measuring clinical outcomes showed small or no improvements. Studies were performed most frequently in the USA (n=63), Europe (n=16), and Canada (n=6).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion</st>
<p>Many studies had limited description of systems, installations, institutions, and targets of the intervention. Problems with methods and analyses were also found. Few studies addressed order communication, dispensing, or administering, non-physician prescribers or pharmacists and their MMIT tools, or patients and caregivers. Other study methods are also needed to completely understand the effects of MMIT.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions</st>
<p>Almost half of MMIT interventions improved the process of care, but few studies measured clinical outcomes. This large body of literature, although instructive, is not uniformly distributed across settings, people, medication phases, or outcomes.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[McKibbon, K. A., Lokker, C., Handler, S. M., Dolovich, L. R., Holbrook, A. M., O'Reilly, D., Tamblyn, R., Hemens, B. J., Basu, R., Troyan, S., Roshanov, P. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2011-12-10T07:38:52-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000304</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2011-000304</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Editor''s choice]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The effectiveness of integrated health information technologies across the phases of medication management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>22</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>30</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/31?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[A systematic review to evaluate the accuracy of electronic adverse drug event detection]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/31?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>Adverse drug events (ADEs), defined as adverse patient outcomes caused by medications, are common and difficult to detect. Electronic detection of ADEs is a promising method to identify ADEs. We performed this systematic review to characterize established electronic detection systems and their accuracy.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>We identified studies evaluating electronic ADE detection from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. We included studies if they contained original data and involved detection of electronic triggers using information systems. We abstracted data regarding rule characteristics including type, accuracy, and rationale.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>Forty-eight studies met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-four (50%) studies reported rule accuracy but only 9 (18.8%) utilized a proper gold standard (chart review in all patients). Rule accuracy was variable and often poor (range of sensitivity: 40%&ndash;94%; specificity: 1.4%&ndash;89.8%; positive predictive value: 0.9%&ndash;64%). 5 (10.4%) studies derived or used detection rules that were defined by clinical need or the underlying ADE prevalence. Detection rules in 8 (16.7%) studies detected specific types of ADEs.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion</st>
<p>Several factors led to inaccurate ADE detection algorithms, including immature underlying information systems, non-standard event definitions, and variable methods for detection rule validation. Few ADE detection algorithms considered clinical priorities. To enhance the utility of electronic detection systems, there is a need to systematically address these factors.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Forster, A. J., Jennings, A., Chow, C., Leeder, C., van Walraven, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2011-12-10T07:38:52-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000454</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2011-000454</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[A systematic review to evaluate the accuracy of electronic adverse drug event detection]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>31</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>38</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/39?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The use of count data models in biomedical informatics evaluation research]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/39?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>Studies on the impact and value of health information technology (HIT) have often focused on outcome measures that are counts of such things as hospital admissions or the number of laboratory tests per patient. These measures with their highly skewed distributions (high frequency of 0s and 1s) are more appropriately analyzed with count data models than the much more frequently used variations of ordinary least squares (OLS). Use of a statistical procedure that does not properly fit the distribution of the data can result in significant findings being overlooked. The objective of this paper is to encourage greater use of count data models by demonstrating their utility with an example based on the authors' current work.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Target audience</st>
<p>Researchers conducting impact and outcome studies related to HIT.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Scope</st>
<p>We review and discuss count data models and illustrate their value in comparison to OLS using an example from a study of the impact of an electronic health record (EHR) on laboratory test orders. The best count data model reveals significant relationships that OLS does not detect. We conclude that comprehensive model checking is highly recommended to identify the most appropriate analytic model when the dependent variable being examined contains count data. This strategy can lead to more valid and precise findings in HIT evaluation studies.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Du, J., Park, Y.-T., Theera-Ampornpunt, N., McCullough, J. S., Speedie, S. M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2011-12-10T07:38:52-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000256</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2011-000256</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The use of count data models in biomedical informatics evaluation research]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>39</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>44</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/121?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/19/1/121?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Automation bias (AB)&mdash;the tendency to over-rely on automation&mdash;has been studied in various academic fields. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) aim to benefit the clinical decision-making process. Although most research shows overall improved performance with use, there is often a failure to recognize the new errors that CDSS can introduce. With a focus on healthcare, a systematic review of the literature from a variety of research fields has been carried out, assessing the frequency and severity of AB, the effect mediators, and interventions potentially mitigating this effect. This is discussed alongside automation-induced complacency, or insufficient monitoring of automation output. A mix of subject specific and freetext terms around the themes of automation, human&ndash;automation interaction, and task performance and error were used to search article databases. Of 13 821 retrieved papers, 74 met the inclusion criteria. User factors such as cognitive style, decision support systems (DSS), and task specific experience mediated AB, as did attitudinal driving factors such as trust and confidence. Environmental mediators included workload, task complexity, and time constraint, which pressurized cognitive resources. Mitigators of AB included implementation factors such as training and emphasizing user accountability, and DSS design factors such as the position of advice on the screen, updated confidence levels attached to DSS output, and the provision of information versus recommendation. By uncovering the mechanisms by which AB operates, this review aims to help optimize the clinical decision-making process for CDSS developers and healthcare practitioners.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., Wyatt, J. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2011-12-10T07:38:52-08:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2011-000089</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2012-01-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>121</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>127</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/6/732?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: a systematic review of the evidence]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/6/732?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background</st>
<p>The electronic medical record (EMR)/electronic health record (EHR) is becoming an integral component of many primary-care outpatient practices. Before implementing an EMR/EHR system, primary-care practices should have an understanding of the potential benefits and limitations.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>The objective of this study was to systematically review the recent literature around the impact of the EMR/EHR within primary-care outpatient practices.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Materials and methods</st>
<p>Searches of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, ABI Inform, and Cochrane Library were conducted to identify articles published between January 1998 and January 2010. The gray literature and reference lists of included articles were also searched. 30 studies met inclusion criteria.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results and discussion</st>
<p>The EMR/EHR appears to have structural and process benefits, but the impact on clinical outcomes is less clear. Using Donabedian's framework, five articles focused on the impact on healthcare structure, 21 explored healthcare process issues, and four focused on health-related outcomes.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Holroyd-Leduc, J. M., Lorenzetti, D., Straus, S. E., Sykes, L., Quan, H.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2011-10-18T14:19:34-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000019</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2010-000019</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Editor''s choice]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: a systematic review of the evidence]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2011-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>6</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>732</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>737</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/6/738?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Computerization of workflows, guidelines, and care pathways: a review of implementation challenges for process-oriented health information systems]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/6/738?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective</st>
<p>There is a need to integrate the various theoretical frameworks and formalisms for modeling clinical guidelines, workflows, and pathways, in order to move beyond providing support for individual clinical decisions and toward the provision of process-oriented, patient-centered, health information systems (HIS). In this review, we analyze the challenges in developing process-oriented HIS that formally model guidelines, workflows, and care pathways.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods</st>
<p>A qualitative meta-synthesis was performed on studies published in English between 1995 and 2010 that addressed the modeling process and reported the exposition of a new methodology, model, system implementation, or system architecture. Thematic analysis, principal component analysis (PCA) and data visualisation techniques were used to identify and cluster the underlying implementation &lsquo;challenge&rsquo; themes.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results</st>
<p>One hundred and eight relevant studies were selected for review. Twenty-five underlying &lsquo;challenge&rsquo; themes were identified. These were clustered into 10 distinct groups, from which a conceptual model of the implementation process was developed.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion and conclusion</st>
<p>We found that the development of systems supporting individual clinical decisions is evolving toward the implementation of adaptable care pathways on the semantic web, incorporating formal, clinical, and organizational ontologies, and the use of workflow management systems. These architectures now need to be implemented and evaluated on a wider scale within clinical settings.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gooch, P., Roudsari, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2011-10-18T14:19:34-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000033</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2010-000033</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:subject><![CDATA[Editor''s choice]]></dc:subject>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Computerization of workflows, guidelines, and care pathways: a review of implementation challenges for process-oriented health information systems]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2011-11-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>6</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>738</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>748</prism:endingPage>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/5/544?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Natural language processing: an introduction]]></title>
<link>http://jamia.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/18/5/544?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives</st>
<p>To provide an overview and tutorial of natural language processing (NLP) and modern NLP-system design.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Target audience</st>
<p>This tutorial targets the medical informatics generalist who has limited acquaintance with the principles behind NLP and/or limited knowledge of the current state of the art.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Scope</st>
<p>We describe the historical evolution of NLP, and summarize common NLP sub-problems in this extensive field. We then provide a synopsis of selected highlights of medical NLP efforts. After providing a brief description of common machine-learning approaches that are being used for diverse NLP sub-problems, we discuss how modern NLP architectures are designed, with a summary of the Apache Foundation's Unstructured Information Management Architecture. We finally consider possible future directions for NLP, and reflect on the possible impact of IBM Watson on the medical field.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nadkarni, P. M., Ohno-Machado, L., Chapman, W. W.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2011-08-16T13:07:36-07:00</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000464</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>hwp:master-id:amiajnl;amiajnl-2011-000464</dc:identifier>
<dc:publisher>American Medical Informatics Association</dc:publisher>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Natural language processing: an introduction]]></dc:title>
<prism:publicationDate>2011-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:section>Review</prism:section>
<prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:startingPage>544</prism:startingPage>
<prism:endingPage>551</prism:endingPage>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>
