Information technology and hospice palliative care: social, cultural, ethical and technical implications in a rural setting

References

• Anderson JG, Aydin CE, Jay SJ. Evaluating health care information systems: methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications;1994.
   Google Scholar
• Berg M, Aarts J, van der Lei J. ICT in healthcare: sociotechnical approaches. Methods of Information in Medicine 2003;42(4):297–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean model of information system success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems 2003;19(4):9–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kushnirk AW, Patel VL. Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2004; 37:56–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bernstein MS, Ackerman MS, Chi EH, Miller RC. The trouble with social computing systems research. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings; CHI 2011, May 7–12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada. ACM 978-1-4503-0268-5/11/05, 451–454.
   Google Scholar
• Goritz LG. Estimating the success of e-health collaborative services: the THEMIS framework. Informatics for Health & Social Care March 2011;36(2):89–99.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lau F. Extending the infoway benefits evaluation framework for health information systems. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2009;143:406–413.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Campbell EM, Sittig DS, Ash JS, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2006;13:547–556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilson D, Lyytinen K, Sørensen C. Desperately seeking the infrastructure in IS research: conceptualization of ‘digital convergence’ as co-evolution of social and technical infrastructures. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International International Conference on Systems Science (HICSS-43 2010), Proceedings, 5–8 January 2010, Koloa, Kauai, HI, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Rozenblum R, Jang Y, Zimlichman E, Salzberg C, Tamblyn M, Buckeridge D, Forster A A qualitative study of Canada's experience with the implementation of electronic health information technology. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2011;183(5):E281–E288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rigby M. Hill P, Koch S, Keeling D. Social care informatics as an essential part of holistic health care: a call for action. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2011;80(8):544–554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmann BM. Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2008;24(4):423–429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson JG. Social, ethical and legal barriers to E-health. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2007;76:480–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferris F, Balfour H, Bowen K, Farley J, Hardwick M, Lamontagne C, Lundy M A model to guide hospice palliative care: based on national principles and norms of practice. Ottawa: Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Miller SC, Teno JM, Mor V. Hospice and palliative care in nursing homes. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine 2004;20:717–734.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carstairs S. Still not there – quality end-of-life care: a progress report, quality end of life care coalition of Canada. Ottawa: Author; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Kidd L, Cayless S, Johnston B, Wengstrom Y. Telehealth in palliative care in the UK: a review of the evidence. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2010;16:394–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lind L, Karlsson D, Fridlund B. Patients' use of digital pens for pain assessment in advanced palliative home healthcare. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2008;77:129–136.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Young G. Implementing a patient administration system. European Journal of Palliative Care 2000;7:26–28.
   Google Scholar
• Whitten P, Holtz B, Meyer E, Nazione S. Telehospice: reasons for slow adoption in home hospice care. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2009;15:187–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidel GC. Burnout and compassion fatigue among hospice caregivers. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care 2002;19:200–205.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cartwright J, Kayser-Jones J. End-of-life care in assisted living facilities: perceptions of residents, families and staff. Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing 2003;5:143–151.
   Google Scholar
• Kuziemsky CE, Weber-Jahnke JH, Lau F, Downing GM. An interdisciplinary computer based information tool for palliative severe pain management. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2008;15(3):374–382.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Demiris G, Washington K, Oliver DP, Wittenberg-Lyles E. A study of information flow in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings. Journal of Interprofessional Care 2008;22(6):621–629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stieda V, Colvin B. Descriptive analysis of the inequalities of health information resources between Alberta's rural and urban health regions. Healthcare Quarterly 2009;12(3):66–70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gallagher M, Hares T, Spencer J, Bradshaw C, Webb I. The nominal group technique: a research tool for general practice? Family Practice 1993;10(1):76–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Weijden T, Légaré F, Boivin A, Burgers JS, van Veenendaal H, Stiggelbout AM, Faber M, Elwyn G. How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol. Implementation Science (online) 2010;5:10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hseih HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 2005;15(9):1277–1288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kushniruk, AW, Triola MM, Borycki EM, Stein B, Kannry JL. Technology induced error and usability: the relationship between usability problems and prescription errors when using a handheld application. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2005;74(7–8):519–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw NT. ‘CHEATS’: a generic information communication technology (ICT) evaluation framework. Computers in Biology and Medicine 2002;32:209–220.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Balka E, Bjorn P, Wagner I. Steps towards a typology for health informatics. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8–12 November 2008, San Diego, CA, USA, 515–524.
   Google Scholar
• Berg M. The search for synergy: interrelating medical work and patient care information systems. Methods of Informatica in Medicine 2003;42(4):337–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canada Health Infoway. Available from: http://www.infoway-inforoute.ca/lang-en/ (accessed 12 July 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Hovenga EJS. Importance of achieving semantic interoperability for national health information systems. Texto Contexto Enfermagem (Florianópolis) 2008;17(1):158–167.
   Google Scholar
• Connecting for Health. Available from: http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/ (accessed 12 July 2011).
   Google Scholar
• UK – another government IT scheme in trouble. Telegraph, Published 28 October 2008. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3563090/Another-Government-IT-scheme-in-trouble.html (accessed 12 July 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Ford EW, Menachemi N, Peterson LT, Huerta TR. Resistance is futile: but it is slowing the pace of EHR adoption nonetheless. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2009;16:274–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar