Skip to main content
Log in

Pragmatics

Principals of design and evaluation of an information system for a department of respiratory medicine

  • Feature
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives—To evaluate a departmental computer system.

Design—a. Direct comparison of the time taken to use a manual system with the time taken to use a computer system for lung function evaluation, loan of equipment and production of correspondence. b. Analysis of the accuracy of data capture before and after the introduction of the computer system. c. Analysis of the comparative running costs of the manual and computer systems.

Setting—Within a department of respiratory medicine serving a hospital of 1323 beds.

Main Outcome Measures—a. Time taken to perform functions with the assistance of computerised methods, in comparison to the manual method used alone. b. Accuracy of data capture. c. Relative running costs.

Results—a. The computer system (CS) was significantly faster than the manual system (MS) for lung function evaluation (CS=7.63 min/test, MS=12.25 min/test), loan of equipment (CS=0.40 min/loan, MS=2.07 min/loan), and checking for overdue equipment (CS=0.49 s/record, MS=9 s/record). The production of correspondence was slightly slower with the computer (CS=9.30 min/letter, MS=8.54 min/letter). b. All outpatient episodes, but only 43 of 65 (66%) of inpatient episodes, were captured. Lung function and managerial report data were accurate using both manual and computerised methods. The manual system for equipment loans was inefficient, and use of the computer resulted in the recovery of 221 nebulisers. c. Development costs for 1988–1990 were high (£72 178). Only £1200 to £1845 per year was recovered directly from staff time saved by the computer but larger savings resulted from changes in work practice (£4049–4765). After 10 years the projected deficit is £10 000 per annum in running costs.

Conclusions—In comparison with the manual methods, the computer system has shown significant advantages which provide accurate information, with significant favourable effects on working practices. In evaluating computer systems used in clinical practice it is essential to ensure that the projected work practice benefits are achieved without unacceptable costs in staff time, inaccurate data and high financial outlay.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mumford, E. (1991). Need for relevance in management information systems: what the NHS can learn from industry.British Medical Journal 302, 1587–1590.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Köerner, E. (1982).First Report to the Secretary of State; Steering Group on Health Services Information, HMSO, London.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beech, C. and Pantin, C. F. A. (1993). A computer system for a department.Respiratory Medicine 87(7), 491–495.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Niel, T. (1993). Evaluating and selecting an information system part 1.American Journal of Hospital Pharmarcy.50(1), 117–120

    Google Scholar 

  5. Friesdorf, W. and Schwilk, B. (1992). Patient-related data management.Journal of Clinical Monitoring 8(4), 308–314.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hartshorne, J. E. and Carstens, I. L. (1990). Role of information systems in public health services.Journal of the Dental Association of South Africa 45(7), 313–317.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Moidu, K. (1992). Application of an essential data set based computer system in support of maternal and child health.International Journal of Biomedical Computing 31(4), 159–175.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Richards, J. (1992). Implementing a computer system: issues for nurse administrators.Computers in Nursing 10(1), 9–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Heathfield, H., Armstrong, J. and Kirkham, N. (1991). Object-oriented programming in medical decision support.Computer Methods Programs in Biomedicine 36(4), 139–251.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gerneth, F., Haux, R. and Selbmann, H. K. (1991). On research subsystems and their integration on the computer-supported part of hospital information systems.Medical Informatics 16(1), 77–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Beech, C., Evans, A., Hill, V., Mali, N., Bradbury, S. and Pantin, C. F. A. (1992). Information technology in a department of respiratory medicine. In:Proceedings of Healthcare Computing, BJHC Books, Weybridge.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mahdy, A. L. and Aly, F. M. (1987). Domiciliary oxygen.Health Trends 19, 8–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pantin, C., Beech, C., Bradbury, S. and Evans, A. (1992). Computers in respiratory medicine.British Journal of Hospital Medicine 48, 656–663.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baldwin, D.R., Beech, C.A., Evans, A.H. et al. Pragmatics. Health Care Anal 5, 78–84 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678459

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678459

Keywords

Navigation