Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Assistant Professor, Health Information Management, Department of The Department of Librarianship and Medical Informatics, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Medical Informatics, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Health Information Management, School of Allied Medical sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 MSc, Medical Record Education, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: Today, medical software are used in different aspects of healthcare varying from simple data processing to collection and interpretation of physiological information and education of nurses and physicians. To ensure use of medical software, they must be constantly evaluated based on specific criteria. Since there is no organized evaluation system and comprehensive criteria for evaluating medical software in Iran, the present study aimed to codify and present a conceptual evaluation model for anatomical pathology software. Methods: This was an applied and descriptive study. The research population included pathology anatomical software evaluation models. The research environment consisted of libraries and the internet. This study was performed in 2014. The sample volume of was equal to the research population volume (5 evaluation models). The second checklist was developed through studying the literature. The validity of the checklist was approved through determination of content validity by studying the literature and obtaining feedback from scholars. The reliability of the instrument was approved through test-re-test. The collected data were analyzed through comparative analysis using evaluation models of anatomical pathology software. Results: The results presented two different groups for evaluating anatomical pathology software capabilities; general criteria and specific criteria. The general evaluative criteria were classified into 3 categories including security, user friendliness, and interoperability. The specific criteria were divided into 7 categories including admission-discharge-transfer, test ordering, following the specimen, recording and reporting of results, obtaining reports, quality control, and accounting management. Based on these findings, the evaluation instrument (the checklist) and its method of evaluation were presented. Conclusion: The model presented in this research encompasses various dimensions of anatomical pathology information system and the appropriate method for its evaluation. The strengths of the evaluation model compared to other evaluation models were the separation between general and specific criteria, specified target users for each relevant subcriterion, the clarity of specific criteria in more detail, and validation of the evaluation model by experts in this area.
)