Increasingly, studies are being published on the potential negative effect of introducing poor designed Health Information Technology (HIT) into clinical settings, relating to technology-induced errors and adverse events. Academic research on HIT design and evaluation is an extremely important source of information in providing new insights into factors contributing to successful system (re)design efforts, system user-friendliness and usability issues and safety critical aspects of HIT design. However, these studies have been inconsistent and incomprehensive in their reporting, complicating the appraisal of outcomes, generalizability of study findings, meta-analysis and harmonization of the available evidence. To improve identification of type of use errors and safety related issues regarding design and implementation of HIT, consensus on issues to be reported on in scientific publications is a necessary step forward. This study presents the first approach to a framework providing a set of principles to follow for comprehensive and unambiguous reporting of HIT design and usability evaluation studies with the objective to reduce variation, improve on the publication reporting quality and proper indexation of these studies. This framework may be helpful in expanding the knowledge base not only concerning the application of Human Factors (HF)/Usability studies of HIT but also improve the knowledge base of how to (re)design and implement effective, efficient and safe HIT.