The IRMA Community
Newsletters
Research IRM
Click a keyword to search titles using our InfoSci-OnDemand powered search:
|
Requirements Partially Determine Why Professionals USE IT in Healthcare
|
Author(s): Ton A.M. Spil (University of Twente, The Netherlands)and Roel W. Schuring (University of Twente, The Netherlands)
Copyright: 2004
Pages: 5
Source title:
Innovations Through Information Technology
Source Editor(s): Mehdi Khosrow-Pour, D.B.A. (Information Resources Management Association, USA)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-261-9.ch033
ISBN13: 9781616921255
EISBN13: 9781466665347
|
Abstract
Information quality is an important feature for information systems innovation and diffusion. But how important is it? The practice is full with “bad” information systems widely accepted and used and “good” information systems left on the shelf. This paper introduces, defines and empirically tests, requirements as a key determinant of Information Technology diffusion and IT-use in healthcare organizations. The main question is: to what extend do requirements influence the USE of IT in healthcare? A multiple case study amongst 56 general practitioners (GP’s) on the influence of requirements on the introduction of an Electronic Prescription System (EPS) demonstrates that the EPS is not used in at least 72% of the cases. Requirements are defined as the degree to which the user needs are satisfied with the product quality of the innovation. Results of the multiple case study show that in the first place the wrong people are asked for their information needs. Only innovators participated in the project team, the “average” GP was not involved. Secondly we found a lack of clarity of goals on macro level. The ministry had a goal to save 150 million euro, the main benefits of the system lie in the quality of the diagnosis and prescription. Finally, on micro level, we concluded that there was an important lack of functionality of the system, that is the communication functionality. On top of that one of the main performance requirement in the perception of the GP’s, timeliness, was not met.
|
|