OBJECTIVE: This article reports on the alignment between the foundational domains and the delineation of practice (DoP) for health informatics, both developed by the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA). Whereas the foundational domains guide graduate-level curriculum development and accreditation assessment, providing an educational pathway to the minimum competencies needed as a health informatician, the DoP defines the domains, tasks, knowledge, and skills that a professional needs to competently perform in the discipline of health informatics. The purpose of this article is to determine whether the foundational domains need modification to better reflect applied practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an iterative process and through individual and collective approaches, the foundational domains and the DoP statements were analyzed for alignment and eventual harmonization. Tables and Sankey plot diagrams were used to detail and illustrate the resulting alignment. RESULTS: We were able to map all the individual DoP knowledge statements and tasks to the AMIA foundational domains, but the statements within a single DoP domain did not all map to the same foundational domain. Even though the AMIA foundational domains and DoP domains are not in perfect alignment, the DoP provides good examples of specific health informatics competencies for most of the foundational domains. There are, however, limited DoP knowledge statements and tasks mapping to foundational domain 6-Social and Behavioral Aspects of Health. DISCUSSION: Both the foundational domains and the DoP were developed independently, several years apart, and for different purposes. The mapping analyses reveal similarities and differences between the practice experience and the curricular needs of health informaticians. CONCLUSIONS: The overall alignment of both domains may be explained by the fact that both describe the current and/or future health informatics professional. One can think of the foundational domains as representing the broad foci for educational programs for health informaticians and, hence, they are appropriately the focus of organizations that accredit these programs.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop an evaluation framework for electronic health record (EHR)-integrated innovations to support evaluation activities at each of four information technology (IT) life cycle phases: planning, development, implementation, and operation. METHODS: The evaluation framework was developed based on a review of existing evaluation frameworks from health informatics and other domains (human factors engineering, software engineering, and social sciences); expert consensus; and real-world testing in multiple EHR-integrated innovation studies. RESULTS: The resulting Evaluation in Life Cycle of IT (ELICIT) framework covers four IT life cycle phases and three measure levels (society, user, and IT). The ELICIT framework recommends 12 evaluation steps: (1) business case assessment; (2) stakeholder requirements gathering; (3) technical requirements gathering; (4) technical acceptability assessment; (5) user acceptability assessment; (6) social acceptability assessment; (7) social implementation assessment; (8) initial user satisfaction assessment; (9) technical implementation assessment; (10) technical portability assessment; (11) long-term user satisfaction assessment; and (12) social outcomes assessment. DISCUSSION: Effective evaluation requires a shared understanding and collaboration across disciplines throughout the entire IT life cycle. In contrast with previous evaluation frameworks, the ELICIT framework focuses on all phases of the IT life cycle across the society, user, and IT levels. Institutions seeking to establish evaluation programs for EHR-integrated innovations could use our framework to create such shared understanding and justify the need to invest in evaluation. CONCLUSION: As health care undergoes a digital transformation, it will be critical for EHR-integrated innovations to be systematically evaluated. The ELICIT framework can facilitate these evaluations.

OBJECTIVE: Clinician information overload is prevalent in critical care settings. Improved visualization of patient information may help clinicians cope with information overload, increase efficiency, and improve quality. We compared the effect of information display interventions with usual care on patient care outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review including experimental and quasi-experimental studies of information display interventions conducted in critical care and anesthesiology settings. Citations from January 1990 to June 2018 were searched in PubMed and IEEE Xplore. Reviewers worked independently to screen articles, evaluate quality, and abstract primary outcomes and display features. RESULTS: Of 6742 studies identified, 22 studies evaluating 17 information displays met the study inclusion criteria. Information display categories included comprehensive integrated displays (3 displays), multipatient dashboards (7 displays), physiologic and laboratory monitoring (5 displays), and expert systems (2 displays). Significant improvement on primary outcomes over usual care was reported in 12 studies for 9 unique displays. Improvement was found mostly with comprehensive integrated displays (4 of 6 studies) and multipatient dashboards (5 of 7 studies). Only 1 of 5 randomized controlled trials had a positive effect in the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: We found weak evidence suggesting comprehensive integrated displays improve provider efficiency and process outcomes, and multipatient dashboards improve compliance with care protocols and patient outcomes. Randomized controlled trials of physiologic and laboratory monitoring displays did not show improvement in primary outcomes, despite positive results in simulated settings. Important research translation gaps from laboratory to actual critical care settings exist.

OBJECTIVES: Identify and describe information needs and associated goals of physicians, care coordinators, and families related to coordinating care for medically complex children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted 19 in-depth interviews with physicians, care coordinators, and parents of CYSHCN following the Critical Decision Method technique. We analyzed the interviews for information needs posed as questions using a systematic content analysis approach and categorized the questions into information need goal types and subtypes. RESULTS: The Critical Decision Method interviews resulted in an average of 80 information needs per interview. We categorized them into 6 information need goal types: (1) situation understanding, (2) care networking, (3) planning, (4) tracking/monitoring, (5) navigating the health care system, and (6) learning, and 32 subtypes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Caring for CYSHCN generates a large amount of information needs that require significant effort from physicians, care coordinators, parents, and various other individuals. CYSHCN are often chronically ill and face developmental challenges that translate into intense demands on time, effort, and resources. Care coordination for CYCHSN involves multiple information systems, specialized resources, and complex decision-making. Solutions currently offered by health information technology fall short in providing support to meet the information needs to perform the complex care coordination tasks. Our findings present significant opportunities to improve coordination of care through multifaceted and fully integrated informatics solutions.