The Need for Trustworthiness Models in Healthcare Software Solutions

Raja Manzar Abbas, Noel Carroll, Ita Richardson, Sarah Beecham

Abstract

Trustworthiness in software is of vital importance to technology users, especially in health, where lives may depend on the correct application of software that is fit for purpose. Despite the risk posed by improper use of technology in the health domain, there is evidence to suggest that stakeholders often trust the software without fully appreciating the possible consequences. In this paper, we explore what determines trustworthiness in healthcare software solutions. While there are often claims of improved quality of care, increased safety and improved patient outcomes using healthcare technology – the scientific basis for such claims appear to be uncritically accepted. Ultimately, this can lead to a surge in healthcare software solutions, some of which may be misaligned with healthcare needs and potentially lead to fatal outcomes. To support health technology stakeholders, we propose a ‘trustworthiness healthcare software model’ that can be employed to assess the level of trustworthiness associated with healthcare software solutions.

References

  1. Amoroso, E., Taylor, C., Watson, J. and Weiss, J., 1994, November. A process-oriented methodology for assessing and improving software trustworthiness. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Computer and communications security pp. 39-50.
  2. Armitage, A and Keeble-Allen, D. 2008."Undertaking a structured literature review or structuring a literature review: Tales from the field", Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6 (2), pp. 103-114. Available www.ejbrm.com.
  3. Boehm, B., 2006, May. A view of 20th and 21st century software engineering. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering pp. 12-29. ACM.
  4. Burton, J., McCaffery, F. and Richardson, I., 2006, May. A risk management capability model for use in medical device companies. In Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Software quality pp. 3- 8.ACM.
  5. Carbone, M., Christensen, A.S., Nielson, F., Nielson, H.R., Hildebrandt, T. and Sølvkjaer, M., 2013, August. ICTpowered Health Care Processes. In International Symposium on Foundations of Health Informatics Engineering and Systems pp. 59-68. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  6. Carroll, N. 2016. Key Success Factors for Smart and Connected Health Software Solutions, Computer, Vol. 49, No. 11, pp. 32-38.
  7. Carroll, N. and Richardson, I., 2016. Software-as-a-Medical Device: Demystifying Connected Health Regulations. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 18(2).
  8. Catwell, L. and Sheikh, A., 2009. Evaluating eHealth interventions: the need for continuous systemic evaluation. PLoS Med, 6(8), p.e1000126.
  9. Clarke, P., Lepmets, M., McCaffery, F., Finnegan, A., Dorling, A. and Flood, D., 2014, November. MDevSPICE-a comprehensive solution for manufacturers and assessors of safety-critical medical device software. In International Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination pp. 274-278. Springer International Publishing.
  10. European Commission (2014), “Green paper on mobile health ('mHealth')”, COM 219 final, SWD 135 Final, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/ news/green-paper-mobilehealth- mhealth (accessed November, 2016).
  11. Huckvale, K., Adomaviciute, S., Prieto, J.T., Leow, M.K.S. and Car, J., 2015. Smartphone apps for calculating insulin dose: a systematic assessment. BMC medicine, 13(1), p.1.
  12. Huckvale, K., Car, M., Morrison, C. and Car, J., 2012. Apps for asthma self-management: a systematic assessment of content and tools. BMC medicine, 10(1), p.1.
  13. Huckvale, K., Car, M., Morrison, C. and Car, J., 2012. Apps for asthma self-management: a systematic assessment of content and tools. BMC medicine, 10(1), p.1.
  14. Institute of Medicine (2007) Preventing medication errors. Washington (D.C.): National Academy Press.
  15. Jepsen, T., 2003. IT in healthcare: progress report. IT professional, 5(1), pp.8-14.
  16. Larsen, M.E., Nicholas, J. and Christensen, H., 2016. A systematic assessment of smartphone tools for suicide prevention. PloS one, 11(4), p.e0152285.
  17. Leroy, G., Chen, H. and Rindflesch, T.C., 2014. Smart and connected health. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 29(3), pp.2- 5.
  18. McCaffery, F., Dorling, A. and Casey, V. (2010), “Medi SPICE: an update”, available at: http:// eprints.dkit.ie/48/ (accessed 14 November 2016).
  19. McHugh, M., McCaffery, F. and Casey, V., 2012. Software process improvement to assist medical device software development organisations to comply with the amendments to the medical device directive. IET software, 6(5), pp.431-437.
  20. Merriam-Webster, 2004. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Merriam-Webster.
  21. Nicholas, J., Larsen, M.E., Proudfoot, J. and Christensen, H., 2015. Mobile apps for bipolar disorder: a systematic review of features and content quality. Journal of medical Internet research, 17(8).
  22. Olff, M., 2015. Mobile mental health: A challenging research agenda. European journal of psychotraumatology, 6.
  23. Petticrew, M.A. (2001)."Systematic literature reviews from astronomy to zoology: Myths and misconceptions", British Medical Journal 322 (7278), pp. 98-101. Available www.bmj.com/cgi/contact/full/322/7278/98.
  24. Shojania, K.G. and Dixon-Woods, M., 2016. Estimating deaths due to medical error: the ongoing controversy and why it matters. BMJ Quality & Safety, pp.bmjqs2016.
  25. The Daily Mail: Health warning over blood pressure monitoring apps as doctors warn they are 'untested, inaccurate and potentially dangerous'. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article2887791/Health-warning-blood-pressure-apps-doctorswarn-untested-inaccurate-potentially-dangerous.html.
  26. United Nations. International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Rev.3. New York.
  27. Van Velsen, L., Wildevuur, S., Flierman, I., Van Schooten, B., Tabak, M. and Hermens, H., 2016. Trust in telemedicine portals for rehabilitation care: an exploratory focus group study with patients and healthcare professionals. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 16(1), p.1.
  28. Wu, R., Ahn, G.J. and Hu, H., 2012, January. Towards HIPAA-compliant healthcare systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium pp. 593-602. ACM.
  29. Yang, Y., Wang, Q. and Li, M., 2009, May. Process trustworthiness as a capability indicator for measuring and improving software trustworthiness. In International Conference on Software Process pp. 389-401. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  30. Zhang, H., Kitchenham, B. and Jeffery, R., 2012. Toward trustworthy software process models: an exploratory study on transformable process modeling. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 24(7), pp.741-763.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Abbas R., Carroll N., Richardson I. and Beecham S. (2017). The Need for Trustworthiness Models in Healthcare Software Solutions . In Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies - Volume 5: HEALTHINF, (BIOSTEC 2017) ISBN 978-989-758-213-4, pages 451-456. DOI: 10.5220/0006249904510456


in Bibtex Style

@conference{healthinf17,
author={Raja Manzar Abbas and Noel Carroll and Ita Richardson and Sarah Beecham},
title={The Need for Trustworthiness Models in Healthcare Software Solutions},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies - Volume 5: HEALTHINF, (BIOSTEC 2017)},
year={2017},
pages={451-456},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006249904510456},
isbn={978-989-758-213-4},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies - Volume 5: HEALTHINF, (BIOSTEC 2017)
TI - The Need for Trustworthiness Models in Healthcare Software Solutions
SN - 978-989-758-213-4
AU - Abbas R.
AU - Carroll N.
AU - Richardson I.
AU - Beecham S.
PY - 2017
SP - 451
EP - 456
DO - 10.5220/0006249904510456