LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: AJIT
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: I230, I200, I210, I500
Abstract in Turkish\ud \ud Sağlık tüm sağlık teşkillerinin bir bilgi sistemi kullandığı teknoloji-yoğun bir alandır. Sağlık hizmetinin devamının sağlanması ve günlük sağlık bakımı işlemlerinin yürütülmesi sağlık bilgi sistemleri olmaksızın imkansız bir hale gelmiştir. Sağlık bilgi sistmleri sürelki değişen ihtiyaçları karşılamak için iyi yönetilmeli ve desteklenmeli, sürekli geliştirilmelidir. Bunun için yaşayan sistemler olmalıdırlar. Bu bağlamda, işletilen sistemlerin zayıf ve güçlü yanlarını belirlemek için değerlendirme çalışmaları yapılmaktadır. Sağlık bilişimi alanında değerlendirme çok önemli mbir konudur. Yatırımcılar ve yöneticiler bilgi sistemlerini geliştirebilmek için sistemlerinin başarı seviyesini ve zayıf noktalarını bilmek isterler. Burdan yola çıkarak, bir sağlık bilgi sisteminin değerlendirildiği bir çalışma yapılmıştır. Yeni kurulan labaratuvar bilgi sistemi (LBS), hem hastalara hem de kullanıcılara uygulanan anketler vasıtası ile very toplanarak değerlendirilmiştir. LBS Fonksiyon yeterliliği, İş yükü azaltma, Hız, Öğrenme kolaylığı, Hizmet kalitesini arttırma, Süreklilik, Yardım menüleri, Kulanıcı tatmini ve Hasta tatmini özellikleri bazında değerlendirmeye tabii tutulmuştur. Belirlenen eşik değerinin altında kalan özellikler geliştirme gerektiren özellikler olarak belirlenmişit.r Değişik eşik değerlerine göre hangi özelliklerin geliştirilmesi gerektiği bir tablo olarak verilerek, eşik değeri seçimi duruma özel olması nedeniyle değerlendirmeciye bırakılmıştır. Eşik değeri yükseldikçe geliştirme gereken özellik sayısı artmaktadır.\ud \ud [Healthcare is a technology-intensive area where all the healthcare organisations use an information system. Managing daily works and providing the continuity of healthcare is impossible without healthcare information systems. Healthcare information systems have to be well supported and managed, also have to be improved to meet the changing needs, they must be living systems. In this respect, evaluations are carried out to reveal the weak and strong sides of information systems in operation. Evaluation is an important subject for medical informatics domain. The investors and managers need to know the success level and poor sides of their information system to make improvements. In this sense, a case study is performed in this study, to evaluate a healthcare information system. Particularly, the recently deployed laboratory information system (LIS) is evaluated by means of questionnaires, applied to both patients and users of the laboratory information system. Laboratory information system is evaluated on the basis of Function sufficiency, Decreasing Work Load, Speed, Learning Ease, Improving Service Quality, Availability, Help Manuals, User Satisfaction, and Patient Satisfaction features. The features needing to be improved in terms of the effectiveness and efficiency of LIS are measured based on the threshold value. The results are presented in a variable table according to the threshold value selected by the evaluator. As the target threshold value increases, the number of features needing to be improved also increases.]
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Al-Yaseen, H., Al-Jaghoub, S., Al-Shorbaji, M., & Salim, M. (2010). Post-implementation evaluation of healthcare Information Systems in Developing Countries. Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation Volume, 13(1), 9-16.
    • Ammenwerth, E., Iller, C., & Mahler, C. (2006). IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology and individuals: a fit framework and a case study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 6(1), 3.
    • “mmenwerth, E., Gräber, S., Herrmann, G., ”(rkle, T., & König, J. . Evaluation of health information systems problems and challenges.International journal of informatics, 71(2), 125-135.
    • Berg, M. (2001). Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges. International journal of medical informatics, 64(2), 143-156.
    • Eysenbach, G. (2001). What is e-health?. Journal of medical Internet research,3(2).
    • Friedman, C. P., & Wyatt, J. C.. (1997). Evaluation methods in medical informatics.New York: SpringerVerlag, 1997.
    • Furubo, J. E., Rist, R. C., & Sandahl, R. (2002). International atlas of evaluation (pp 1-26). London,Transaction Publishers.
    • Gorla, N., Somers, T. M., & Wong, B. (2010). Organizational impact of system quality, information quality, and service quality. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(3), 207-228.
    • G(rsel, G., Zayim, N., G(lkesen, K. H., “RİFOĞLU, “., & S“K“, O . “ new approach in the evaluation of hospital information systems.Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering& Computer Sciences2014, 22, 214-222.
    • G(rsel G . Healthcare I nformatics. In Mehdi Khosrow-Pour (Ed), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (3rd Edition) (pp. 3376-3386).Hershey,IGI Global.
    • Knodel J., Naab, M., Weitzel, B., (2015, May). Modularity - Often Desired, Too Often Failed . In Heinrich, R., Rostami, K., Stammel, J., Knapp, T., & Reussner, R (Eds.), Architecture-based Kushniruk, A. W., & Patel, V. L. (2004). Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems. Journal of biomedical informatics, 37(1), 56-76.
    • Nevo, D., & Chan, Y. E. (2007). A temporal approach to expectations and desires from knowledge management systems. Decision Support Systems,44(1), 298-312.
    • Protti, D. (2002). A proposal to use a balanced scorecard to evaluate Information for Health: an information strategy for the modern NHS (1998 2005). Computers in biology and medicine, 32(3), 221-236.
    • Ryker, R., Nath, R., & Henson, J. (1997). Determinants of computer user expectations and their relationships with user satisfaction: an empirical study. Information Processing & Management, 33(4), 529-537.
    • Safadi, H., Chan, D., Dawes, M., Roper, M., & Faraj, S. (2015). Open-source health information technology: A case study of electronic medical records. Health Policy and Technology, 4(1), 14- 28.
    • Stanley, R., & Uden, L. (2013). Why projects fail, from the Perspective of Service Science. Paper presented at 7th international conference on knowledge management in organizations: service and cloud computing (pp. 421-429). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
    • Wager, K. A., Lee, F. W., & Glaser, J. P. (2005). Managing health care information systems: A practical approach for health care executives. San Francisco, John Wiley & Sons, 92.
    • Yang, Z. S., Hao, L., & Zhang, Y. H. (2013). A New Method for Information System with Good Performance. In Advanced Materials Research(Vol. 753, pp. 3014-3017).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article