The development of health information systems is not always successful, and there is an emerging perception that money and time that could be better directed to patient care are being wasted on these systems. This paper examines the difficulties faced in creating successful information systems in health services, and suggests strategies for overcoming these difficulties. The development of information systems is a precursor to the use of data in the management of processes which lead towards improved health outcomes. It is argued that before embarking upon difficult and costly new developments, researchers should treat existing sources of data as their first point of call, and New Zealand's existing national data sources are described in detail. Ways in which these data are being used to develop outcome measures are discussed, and it is concluded that through a multidisciplinary approach existing resources could be utilised more efficiently and effectively to achieve this goal.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallMJ, (2002). Better health through informatics: Managing information to deliver value. In: Public Health Informatics and Information Systems. O'CarrollPYasnoffWWardERippLMartinE, (eds). Gaithersburg, Md: Springer-Verlag.
2.
BlakelyTWoodwardAPearceN, (2002). Socio-economic factors and mortality among 25–64 year olds followed from 1991 to 1994: The New Zealand Census-Mortality Study. New Zealand Medical Journal, 115 (1149): 93–97.
3.
ChamberlainJ, (2002). Breastscreen Aotearoa – an independent review [online]. Retrieved from WWW 03/09/04 <www.moh.govt.nz/chamberlainreview>.
4.
ChuS, (2002). Synopsis: Information retrieval and health/clinical management. In: Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2002. HauxRKulikowskiC, (eds). Stuttgart: Schattauer.
5.
CollinsTBicknellD, (1998). Crash: Learning from the world's worst computer disasters. London: Simon and Schuster.
6.
CoxBSneydMJPaulC, (2002). Vasectomy and risk of prostate cancer. Journal of the American Medical Society, 287: 3110–3115.
7.
GammLDBarsukiewiczCKDanskyKHVaseyJJ, (1998). Investigating changes in end-user satisfaction with installation of an electronic medical record in ambulatory care settings. Journal of Healthcare Information Management, 12(4): 33–65.
8.
GardnerR, (1998). Davies Keynote Lecture. Proceedings of the Computer-based Patient Record Institute Conference. Washington DC: CPRI, 1998. In: Lorenzi NM and Riley RT (2000). Managing change: An overview. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7: 116–124.
9.
GlassRL, (1998). Software runaways: Lessons learned from massive software project failures. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
GordonDGeigerG, (1999). Strategic management of an electronic patient record. Journal of Healthcare Information Management, 13(3): 113–123.
11.
HeeksRMundyDSalazarA, (1999). Why health care information systems succeed or fail. Information systems for public sector management: Working Paper Series, Paper No. 9. Institute for Development Policy and Management, Manchester, UK.
12.
IsaacP, (2002). Advise and Consent: Surf's up at the Ministry of Health. CIO (NZ) [Magazine]. 1 Jul 2002.
13.
JochA, (1995). How software doesn't work. Byte. Dec: 49–60.
14.
KaplanRSNortonDP, (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review. Jan/Feb: 71–79.
15.
KleinGO, (2002). Standardization of Health Informatics: Results and challenges. In: Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2002. HauxRKulikowskiC, eds. Stuttgart: Schattauer.
16.
LarsenMAMyersMD, (1999). When success turns into failure: A package-driven business process re-engineering project in the financial services industry. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 8: 395–417.
17.
LorenziNMRileyRTBlythAJC, (1997). Antecedents of the people and organisational aspects of medical informatics: Review of the literature. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 4 (2): 79.
18.
LorenziNM, (2000). The cornerstones of medical informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7: 204–205.
19.
Ministry of Health (2001). From strategy to reality: The WAVE Project. Report of the WAVE Advisory Board to the Director-General of Health. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health.
20.
MyersMDYoungLW, (1997). Hidden agendas, power and managerial assumptions in information systems development: An ethnographic study. Information Technology and People, 10(3): 224–240.
21.
MyersMDOlesenK, (1999). Trying to improve communication and collaboration with information technology; an action research project that failed. Information Technology and People, 12(4): 317–332.
22.
NahmRPostonI, (2002). Measurement of the effects of an integrated, point-of-care computer system on quality of nursing documentation and patient satisfaction. In: Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2002. HauxRKulikowskiC, eds. Stuttgart: Schattauer.
23.
OndoKJWagnerJGaleKL, (2002). The electronic medical record: Hype or reality?Proceedings of Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society Conference 2002, Session 63. Atlanta, Ga.
24.
OrrM, (2000). Implementation of Health Information systems: Background literature review. Research topic prepared for Master of Business Administration thesis, Southern Cross University, Australia.
25.
SmaltzDH, (2000). The elevation of CIO roles: Organisational barriers and organisational enablers. Journal of Healthcare Information Management, 14(1): 81–91.
26.
StebakovaT, (2001). Understanding barriers to implementing a comprehensive information technology system within primary care: The example of one of Auckland's Integrated Practitioner Associations. Master of Health Management minor thesis, University of Auckland, NZ.
27.
StrassmanPA, (1997). The squandered computer. Evaluating the business alignment of information technologies. New Canaan, Conn: The Information Economics Press.
28.
TomlinA, (2002). Linking primary and secondary care data: A preliminary analysis. RNZCGP Research Unit, Department of General Practice, University of Otago, NZ.
29.
UK Audit Commission (1995). For your information: A study of information management and systems in the acute hospital. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
30.
US Department of Health and Human Services (1998). Unique identifier for individuals: A white paper [online]. Retreived from WWW 20/10/03 [www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/noiwp1.htm].
