Research Article

Implementing Health Information System in King Hamad University Hospital Benefits and Challenges

Mohamed Alseddiqi
King Hamad University Hospital, Bahrain
Anwar AL-Mofleh
King Hamad University Hospital, Bahrain
* Corresponding author
Budoor AlMannaei
King Hamad University Hospital, Bahrain
Osama Najam
King Hamad University Hospital, Bahrain
DOI icon 10.24018/ejmed.2023.5.1.1640

Read Counter
691

Downloads
843

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2022-12-27
Published 2023-01-29

Read counter = 691 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

As a university hospital, it prides itself on using the latest techniques, medical and diagnostic curriculum, as well as up-to-the-minute medical equipment and fully equipped facilities. It has over 1700 employees and accommodates more than 311 beds and 9 operating theatres, a number of internal wards plus an intensive care unit with 12 beds. Healthcare organizations now believe in improved efficiency, reduced costs, improved patient care and quality of services, and safety when they are preparing to apply new information and communication technology (ICT) based applications. Health IT systems allow the gathering of data for use for quality management, outcome reporting, and public health disease surveillance and reporting. However, development is needed with all health IT, particularly concerning design, implementation, and integration between platforms within the surroundings of work.

Keywords: Computers electronic medical information systems electronic records health professional

References

  1. Adler MJ. Health Care Requires Big Changes to Complement New IT, Harvard Business Publishing. 2009; 87: 20.
     Google Scholar
  2. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Improving the Patient Record. The Computer-Based Patient Record: Revised Edition: An Essential Technology for Health Care. Dick RS, Steen EB, Detmer DE, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1997.
     Google Scholar
  3. Caligtan CA, Dykes PC. Electronic health records and personal health records. Seminars in Oncology Nursing. 2011; 27(3): 218-28.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  4. Berner ES, Detmer DE, Simborg D. Will the wave finally break? A brief view of the adoption of electronic medical records in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2005; 12(1): 3-7.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  5. Fraser H, Biondich P, Moodley D, Choi S, Mamlin B, Szolovits P, Implementing electronic medical record systems in developing countries, Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics. 2005; 13(2): 83-95.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  6. McDonald CJ. The barriers to electronic medical record systems and how to overcome Them. Journal of the American Medical Informatics, Association. 1997; 4: 213-221.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  7. Eltajoury WM, Maatuk AM, Denna I, Elberkawi EK. Physicians’ attitudes towards electronic prescribing software: perceived benefits and barriers. International Conference on Data Science, E-learning and Information Systems. 2021: 47-53.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  8. Abuzeyad F, Al Jawder S, Bashmi L, Amsalem A, Alqasem L, Hsu S, et al. Use of electronic health records in Kingdom of Bahrain hospitals: a national survey. Journal of Health Informatics in Developing Countries. 2021; 15(2).
     Google Scholar
  9. Dabowsa NIA, Amaitik NM, Maatuk AM, Aljawarneh SA. A hybrid intelligent system for skin disease diagnosis. Int. Conference on Engineering and Technology (ICET), Antalya, 2017: 1-6.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  10. Aljawarneh S, Jaradat R, Maatuk AM, Alhaj A. Gene profile classification: a proposed solution for predicting possible diseases and initial results. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Engineering & MIS (ICEMIS). Agadir, Morocco, 2016: 1-7.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  11. Tubaishat A, AL-Rawajfah OM. The Use of Electronic Medical Records in Jordanian Hospitals: A Nationwide Survey. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 2017; 35(10): 538-545.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  12. Atherton J. Development of the electronic health record. Virtual Mentor. 2011; 13(3): 186-189.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  13. Laven IE, Schröder FF, de Graaff F, Rompen JC, Hoogeslag RA, van Houten AH. Accuracy, inter-and intrarater reliability, and user-experience of high tibial osteotomy angle measurements for preoperative planning: manual planning PACS versus semi-automatic software programs. Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics. 2022; 9(1): 1.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  14. Sun G, Matsui T, Watai Y, Kim S, Kirimoto T, Suzuki S, et al. Vital-SCOPE: design and evaluation of a smart vital sign monitor for simultaneous measurement of pulse rate, respiratory rate, and body temperature for patient monitoring. Journal of Sensors. 2018; 11: 1-7.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  15. Amber KT, Dhiman G, Goodman KW. Conflict of interest in online point-of-care clinical support websites. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2014; 40(8): 578-580.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  16. Zheng J, Zhang J, Danioko S, Yao H, Guo H, Rakovski C. A 12-lead electrocardiogram database for arrhythmia research covering more than 10,000 patients. Scientific Data. 2020; 7(1): 1-8.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar
  17. Hughes JW, Olgin JE, Avram R, Abreau SA, Sittler T, Radia K, Hsia H, Walters T, Lee B, Gonzalez JE, Tison GH. Performance of a convolutional neural network and explainability technique for 12-lead electrocardiogram interpretation. JAMA Cardiology. 2021; 6(11): 1285-95.
    DOI  |   Google Scholar