Assessment of Education and Research in Biomedical Informatics

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives

The existence and survival of university institutes is increasingly dependent on assessments of research and education. In many countries also departments of biomedical informatics are assessed at regular intervals, often as part of the review of a Medical or Health Sciences Faculty, or a Research School. The article underlines the importance of periodic evaluation of research and education in biomedical informatics.

Methods

Quality assessment, if done by an independent review committee of peers, is a suitable instrument to obtain insight into the quality and accountability of both education and research. Key instruments for the assessment of education and research are welldefined protocols that are used for self-assessment. These selfassessment reports form the inputs for the independent review committee.

Results

The outcomes of the assessments are directly related to the quality of research, which is visible in publications in peer-reviewed journals. Internal quality management tools contribute to a large extent to the improvement of the quality of education and research.

Conclusion

External assessment – review by peers – is increasingly used as the final step of an integral quality system for research and education. This is particularly important if the results of biomedical informatics R&D are to be applied in clinical practice. A positive outcome of an assessment can only be expected from a long-term investment in the quality of research and researchers who publish their results in peer-reviewed journals.

• References

• 1 See http://www.iso.org/iso
  PubMed
• 2 See, e.g. http://www.hero.ac.uk/uk/research http://www.qanu.nl http://www.stratresearch.se http://www.inserm.fr/fr/inserm/evaluation http://www.dfg.de/ranking
  PubMed
• 3 See http://www.fda.gov/oc/gcp
  PubMed
• 4 See http://www.htai.org
  PubMed
• 5 Yu VL, Buchanan BG, Shortliffe EH, Wraith SM, Davis R, Scott AC. et al. Evaluating the performance of a computer-based consultant. Comp Progr Biomed 1979; 09: 95-102. (This is early work, done in Stanford)
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Shea S, DuMouchel W, Bahamonde L. A metaanalysis of 16 randomized controlled trials to evaluate computerbased clinical reminder systems for preventive care in the ambulatory setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996; 03: 399-409.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Miller RA, Pople Jr HE, Myers JD. INTERNIST-1, An Experimental Computer-based Diagnostic Consultant for General Internal Medicine. N Engl J Med 1982; 307: 468-76. (This is early work, done in Pittsburgh)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Krishna S, Balas EA, Spencer DC, Griffin JZ, Boren SA. Clinical trials of interactive computerized patient education: implications for family practice. J Fam Pract 1997; 45 (01) 25-33.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Tierney WM, McDonald CJ. Testing informatics innovations: the value of negative trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996; Sep-Oct; 03 (05) 358-9.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Dexter PD, Wolinsky FD, Gramelspacher GP, Zhou XH, Eckert GJ, Waisburd M. et al. Effectiveness of computer-generated reminders for increasing discussions about advance directives and completion of advance directive forms. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1998; 128: 102-10.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 1998; 280: 1360-1.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J. et al. Effects of Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes. A Systematic Review. JAMA 2005; 293: 1223-38.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Willems JL, Abreu-Lima C, Arnaud P, van Bemmel JH, Brohet C, Degani R. et al. The diagnostic performance of computer programs for the interpretation of electrocardiograms. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 1767-73.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Van der Lei J, Van der Does E, Man in ’t Veld AJ, Musen MA, Van Bemmel JH. Response of general practitioners to computer-generated critiques of hypertension therapy. Methods Inf Med 1993; 32: 146-53.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Van Wijk MA, van der Lei J, Mosseveld M, Bohnen AM, van Bemmel JH. Assessment of decision support for blood test ordering in primary care. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 274-81.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Ammenwerth E, De Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care: Trends in evaluation research 1982-2002. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 44-56.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 See, e.g., National Academy of Science. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2004
  Google Scholar
• 18 www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/stw_esys/4assess.htm
  PubMed
• 19 See www.knaw.nl
  PubMed
• 20 See www.efqm.org
  PubMed
• 21 See www.nwo.nl
  PubMed
• 22 http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6
  PubMed