PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (975378)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  A diffusion of innovations model of physician order entry. 
OBJECTIVE: To interpret the results of a cross-site study of physician order entry (POE) in hospitals using a diffusion of innovations theory framework. METHODS: Qualitative study using observation, focus groups, and interviews. Data were analyzed by an interdisciplinary team of researchers using a grounded approach to identify themes. Themes were then interpreted using classical Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) theory as described by Rogers [1]. RESULTS: Four high level themes were identified: organizational issues; clinical and professional issues; technology implementation issues; and issues related to the organization of information and knowledge. Further analysis using the DOI framework indicated that POE is an especially complex information technology innovation when one considers communication, time, and social system issues in addition to attributes of the innovation itself. CONCLUSION: Implementation strategies for POE should be designed to account for its complex nature. The ideal would be a system that is both customizable and integrated with other parts of the information system, is implemented with maximum involvement of users and high levels of support, and is surrounded by an atmosphere of trust and collaboration.
PMCID: PMC2243456  PMID: 11825150
2.  Immediate Benefits Realized Following Implementation of Physician Order Entry at an Academic Medical Center 
Objective: To evaluate the benefits of computerized physician order entry (POE) and electronic medication administration record (eMAR) on the delivery of health care.
Design: Inpatient nursing units in an academic health system were the setting for the study. The study comprised before-and-after comparisons between phase 1, pre-implementation of POE (pre-POE) and phase 2, post-implementation of POE (post-POE) and, within phase 2, a comparison of POE and the combination of POE plus eMAR. Length of stay and cost were compared pre- and post-POE for a period of 10 to 12 months across all services in the respective hospitals.
Measurements: Comparisons were made pre- and post-POE for the time intervals between initiation and completion of pharmacy (pre-POE, n=46; post-POE, n=70), radiology (pre-POE, n=11; post-POE, n=54), and laboratory orders (without POE, n=683; with POE, n=1,142); timeliness of countersignature of verbal order (University Hospitals [OSUH]: pre-POE, n=605; post-POE, n=19,225; James Cancer Hospital (James): pre-POE, n=478; post-POE, n=10,771); volume of nursing transcription errors (POE with manual MAR, n=888; POE with eMAR, n=396); length of stay and total cost (OSUH: pre-POE, n=8,228; post-POE, n=8,154; James: (pre-POE, n=6,471; post-POE, n=6,045).
Results: Statistically significant reductions were seen following the implementation of POE for medication turn-around times (64 percent, from 5:28 hr to 1:51 hr; p<0.001), radiology procedure completion times (43 percent, from 7:37 hr to 4:21 hr; p<0.05), and laboratory result reporting times (25 percent, from 31:3 min to 23:4 min; p=0.001). In addition, POE combined with eMAR eliminated all physician and nursing transcription errors. There were 43 and 26 percent improvements in order countersignature by physicians in OSUH and James, respectively. Severity-adjusted length of stay decreased in OSUH (pre-POE, 3.91 days; post-POE, 3.71 days; p=0.002), but not significantly in James (pre-POE, 3.68 days; post-POE, 3.61 days; p=0.356). Although total cost per admission decreased significantly in selected services, it did not change significantly across either institution (OSUH: pre-POE, $5,697; post-POE, $5,661; p=0.687; James: pre-POE, $6,427; post-POE, $6,518; p=0.502).
Conclusion: Physician order entry and eMAR provided the framework for improvements in patient safety and in the timeliness of care. The significant cultural and workflow changes that accompany the implementation of POE did not adversely affect acuity-adjusted length of stay or total cost. The reductions in transcription errors, medication turn-around times, and timely reporting of results supports the view that POE and eMAR provide a good return on investment.
doi:10.1197/jamia.M1038
PMCID: PMC346640  PMID: 12223505
3.  Perceptions of house officers who use physician order entry. 
OBJECTIVE: Describe the perceptions of housestaff physicians about their experience using computerized physician order entry (POE) in hospitals. METHODS: Qualitative study using data from participant observation, focus groups, and both formal and informal interviews. Data were analyzed by three researchers using a grounded approach to identify patterns and themes in the texts. RESULTS: Six themes were identified, including housestaff education, benefits of POE, problems with POE, feelings about POE, implementation strategies, and the future of POE. CONCLUSION: House officers felt that POE assists patient care but may undermine education. They found that POE works best when tailored to fit local and individual workflow. Implementation strategies should include mechanisms for engaging housestaff in the decision process.
PMCID: PMC2232743  PMID: 10566403
4.  Patient Outcomes with Teaching Versus Nonteaching Healthcare: A Systematic Review 
PLoS Medicine  2006;3(9):e341.
Background
Extensive debate exists in the healthcare community over whether outcomes of medical care at teaching hospitals and other healthcare units are better or worse than those at the respective nonteaching ones. Thus, our goal was to systematically evaluate the evidence pertaining to this question.
Methods and Findings
We reviewed all studies that compared teaching versus nonteaching healthcare structures for mortality or any other patient outcome, regardless of health condition. Studies were retrieved from PubMed, contact with experts, and literature cross-referencing. Data were extracted on setting, patients, data sources, author affiliations, definition of compared groups, types of diagnoses considered, adjusting covariates, and estimates of effect for mortality and for each other outcome. Overall, 132 eligible studies were identified, including 93 on mortality and 61 on other eligible outcomes (22 addressed both). Synthesis of the available adjusted estimates on mortality yielded a summary relative risk of 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93–1.00) for teaching versus nonteaching healthcare structures and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.99–1.10) for minor teaching versus nonteaching ones. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 72% for the main analysis). Results were similar in studies using clinical and those using administrative databases. No differences were seen in the 14 studies fully adjusting for volume/experience, severity, and comorbidity (relative risk 1.01). Smaller studies did not differ in their results from larger studies. Differences were seen for some diagnoses (e.g., significantly better survival for breast cancer and cerebrovascular accidents in teaching hospitals and significantly better survival from cholecystectomy in nonteaching hospitals), but these were small in magnitude. Other outcomes were diverse, but typically teaching healthcare structures did not do better than nonteaching ones.
Conclusions
The available data are limited by their nonrandomized design, but overall they do not suggest that a healthcare facility's teaching status on its own markedly improves or worsens patient outcomes. Differences for specific diseases cannot be excluded, but are likely to be small.
Published data do not suggest that the teaching status of a hospital or other healthcare facility alone influences the outcome of patients treated in that facility.
Editors' Summary
Background.
When people need medical treatment they may be given it in a “teaching hospital.” This is a place where student doctors and other trainee healthcare workers are receiving part of their education. They help give some of the treatment that patients receive. Teaching hospitals are usually large establishments and in most countries they are regarded as being among the very best hospitals available, with leading physicians and surgeons among the staff. It is usually assumed that patients who are being treated in a teaching hospital are lucky, because they are getting such high-quality healthcare. However, it has sometimes been suggested that, because some of the people involved in their care are still in training, the patients may face higher risks than those who are in nonteaching hospitals.
Why Was This Study Done?
The researchers wanted to find out which patients do best after treatment—those who were treated in teaching hospitals or those who were in nonteaching hospitals. This is a difficult issue to study. The most reliable way of comparing two types of treatment would be to decide at random which treatment each patient should receive. (For more on this see the link below for “randomized controlled trials.”) In practice, it would be difficult to set up a study where the decision on which hospital a patient should go to was made at random. One problem is that, because of the high reputation of teaching hospitals, the patients whose condition is the most serious are often sent there, with other patients going to nonteaching hospitals. It would not be a fair test to compare the “outcome” for the most seriously ill patients with the outcome for those whose condition was less serious.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers conducted a thorough search for studies that had already been done, which met criteria which the researchers had specified in advance. This type of research is called a “systematic review.” They found 132 studies that had compared the outcomes of patients in teaching or nonteaching hospitals. None of these studies was a trial. (They were “observational studies” where researchers had gathered information on what was already taking place, rather than setting up an experiment.) However, in 14 studies, extensive allowances had been made for differences in such factors as the severity of the patients' condition, and whether or not they had more than one type of illness when they were treated. There was a great deal of variability in the results between the studies but, overall, there was no major difference in the effectiveness of treatment provided by the two types of hospital.
What Do These Findings Mean?
There is no evidence to support that it is better to be given treatment in a teaching or a nonteaching hospital. The authors do note that a limitation in their analysis is that it was based on studies that were not randomized controlled trials. They also raise the question that differences might be found if considering specific diseases one by one, rather than putting information on all conditions together. However, they believe that any such difference would be small. Their findings will be useful in the continuing debate on the most effective ways to train doctors, while at the same time providing the best possible care for patients.
Additional Information.
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030341.
Wikipedia entry on teaching hospitals (note: Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit)
Information on randomized clinical trials from the US National Institutes of Health
A definition of systematic reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration, an organization which produces systematic reviews
All of the above include links to other Web sites where more detailed information can be found.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030341
PMCID: PMC1564172  PMID: 16968119
5.  Implementation of physician order entry: user satisfaction and self-reported usage patterns. 
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate user satisfaction, correlates of satisfaction, and self-reported usage patterns regarding physician order entry (POE) in one hospital. DESIGN: Surveys were sent to physician and nurse POE users from medical and surgical services. RESULTS: The users were generally satisfied with POE (mean = 5.07 on a 1 to 7 scale). The physicians were more satisfied than the nurses, and the medical staff were more satisfied than the surgical staff; satisfaction levels were acceptable (more than 3.50) even in the less satisfied groups. Satisfaction was highly correlated with perceptions about POE's effects on productivity, ease of use, and speed. POE features directed at improving the quality of care were less strongly correlated with satisfaction. The physicians valued POE's off-floor accessibility most, and the nurses valued legibility and accuracy of POE orders most. Some features, such as off-floor ordering, were perceived to be highly useful and reported to be frequently used by the physicians; while other features, such as "quick mode'' ordering and personal order sets, received little self-reported use. CONCLUSIONS: Survey of POE users showed that satisfaction with POE was good. Satisfaction was more correlated with perceptions about POE's effect on productivity than with POE's effect on quality of care. Physicians and nurses constitute two very different types of users, underscoring the importance of involving both physicians and nonphysicians in POE development. The results suggest that development efforts should focus on improving system speed, adding on-line help, and emphasizing quality benefits of POE.
PMCID: PMC116286  PMID: 8750389
6.  Physician Order Entry Or Nurse Order Entry? Comparison of Two Implementation Strategies for a Computerized Order Entry System Aimed at Reducing Dosing Medication Errors 
Background
Despite the significant effect of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) in reducing nonintercepted medication errors among neonatal inpatients, only a minority of hospitals have successfully implemented such systems. Physicians' resistance and users' frustration seem to be two of the most important barriers. One solution might be to involve nurses in the order entry process to reduce physicians’ data entry workload and resistance. However, the effect of this collaborative order entry method in reducing medication errors should be compared with a strictly physician order entry method.
Objective
To investigate whether a collaborative order entry method consisting of nurse order entry (NOE) followed by physician verification and countersignature is as effective as a strictly physician order entry (POE) method in reducing nonintercepted dose and frequency medication errors in the neonatal ward of an Iranian teaching hospital.
Methods
A four-month prospective study was designed with two equal periods. During the first period POE was used and during the second period NOE was used. In both methods, a warning appeared when the dose or frequency of the prescribed medication was incorrect that suggested the appropriate dosage to the physicians. Physicians’ responses to the warnings were recorded in a database and subsequently analyzed. Relevant paper-based and electronic medical records were reviewed to increase credibility.
Results
Medication prescribing for 158 neonates was studied. The rate of nonintercepted medication errors during the NOE period was 40% lower than during the POE period (rate ratio 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] .50, .71;P < .001). During the POE period, 80% of nonintercepted errors occurred at the prescription stage, while during the NOE period, 60% of nonintercepted errors occurred in that stage. Prescription errors decreased from 10.3% during the POE period to 4.6% during the NOE period (P < .001), and the number of warnings with which physicians complied increased from 44% to 68% respectively (P < .001). Meanwhile, transcription errors showed a nonsignificant increase from the POE period to the NOE period. The median error per patient was reduced from 2 during the POE period to 0 during the NOE period (P = .005). Underdose and curtailed and prolonged interval errors were significantly reduced from the POE period to the NOE period. The rate of nonintercepted overdose errors remained constant between the two periods. However, the severity of overdose errors was lower in the NOE period (P = .02).
Conclusions
NOE can increase physicians' compliance with warnings and recommended dose and frequency and reduce nonintercepted medication dosing errors in the neonatal ward as effectively as POE or even better. In settings where there is major physician resistance to implementation of CPOE, and nurses are willing to participate in the order entry and are capable of doing so, NOE may be considered a beneficial alternative order entry method.
doi:10.2196/jmir.1284
PMCID: PMC2855204  PMID: 20185400
Medical order entry systems; decision support systems, clinical; medication erors; Iran; infant, newborn; patient safety
7.  What's so special about medications: a pharmacist's observations from the POE study. 
Observations from a multi-site observational study of physician order entry (POE) confirm that implementing POE is problematic, and suggest that implementing medication order entry is particularly difficult. A pharmacist participating in the study group sought to answer the question: What makes medications different? Analysis of themes specific to medication POE in this study's large data set was undertaken using a grounded theory approach. Emerging themes in the data are explored and include: (1) order complexity and the consequences of error; (2) impacts on professional roles; (3) prescribing needs in different settings; and (4) technology impact on medication administration. Awareness of potential roadblocks and lessons learned from previous implementation attempts should help organizations considering medication POE to optimize their own strategies.
PMCID: PMC2243687  PMID: 11825161
8.  Multiple perspectives on physician order entry. 
OBJECTIVE: Describe the complex interplay of perspectives of physicians, administrators, and information technology staff regarding computerized physician order entry (POE) in hospitals. METHODS: Linstone's Multiple Perspectives Model provided a framework for organizing the results of a qualitative study done at four sites. Data from observation, focus groups, and formal and informal interviews were analyzed by four researchers using a grounded approach. RESULTS: It is not a simple matter of physicians hating POE and others loving it. The issues involved are both complex and emotional. All groups see both positive and negative aspects of POE. CONCLUSION: The Multiple Perspectives Model was useful for organizing a description to aid in understanding all points of view. It is imperative that those implementing POE understand all views and plan implementation strategies accordingly.
PMCID: PMC2243815  PMID: 11079838
9.  The impact of physician order entry on nursing roles. 
This study examines the impact of physician order entry (POE) on nurses perceptions of work, quality of care, and nurse/physician communication. Four hospitals that have implemented a computerized order-entry system with POE were compared with four similar hospitals using the same computerized system with clerk order entry only. Three factors were extracted from the 29 item survey using principal component extraction with varimax rotation that accounted for 16.5%, 12.4% and 8.7% of the variance respectively. Three scales were constructed from these factors measuring perceptions of impact of the information system on the quality of care, job, control, and nurse/physician communication. Nurses working in the POE environment rated their computer system as having greater impact on the quality of care and lower ratings of perceived control than those working in non-POE environments. No differences were found between nurses working in POE environments and those working in POE in terms of their ratings of frequency of contact and ease of access to physicians.
PMCID: PMC2233002  PMID: 8947758
10.  Contrasting Views of Physicians and Nurses about an Inpatient Computer-based Provider Order-entry System 
Objective: Many hospitals are investing in computer-based provider order-entry (POE) systems, and providers' evaluations have proved important for the success of the systems. The authors assessed how physicians and nurses viewed the effects of one modified commercial POE system on time spent patients, resource utilization, errors with orders, and overall quality of care.
Design: Survey.
Measurements: Opinions of 271 POE users on medicine wards of an urban teaching hospital: 96 medical house officers, 49 attending physicians, 19 clinical fellows with heavy inpatient loads, and 107 nurses.
Results: Responses were received from 85 percent of the sample. Most physicians and nurses agreed that orders were executed faster under POE. About 30 percent of house officers and attendings or fellows, compared with 56 percent of nurses, reported improvement in overall quality of care with POE. Forty-four percent of house officers and 34 percent of attendings/fellows reported that their time with patients decreased, whereas 56 percent of nurses indicated that their time with patients increased (P < 0.001). Sixty percent of house officers and 41 percent of attendings/fellows indicated that order errors increased, whereas 69 percent of nurses indicated a decrease or no change in errors. Although most nurses reported no change in the frequency of ordering tests and medications with POE, 61 percent of house officers reported an increased frequency.
Conclusion: Physicians and nurses had markedly different views about effects of a POE system on patient care, highlighting the need to consider both perspectives when assessing the impact of POE. With this POE system, most nurses saw beneficial effects, whereas many physicians saw negative effects.
PMCID: PMC61363  PMID: 10332656
11.  Organizational and Physician Perspectives about Facilitating Handheld Computer Use in Clinical Practice: Results of a Cross-Site Qualitative Study 
Objective: To describe strategies that organizations select to support physicians' use of handheld computers (HHCs) in clinical practice and to explore issues about facilitating HHC use.
Design: A multidisciplinary team used focus groups and interviews with clinical, administrative, and information technology (IT) staff to gather data from 161 informants at seven sites. Transcripts were coded using a combination of deductive and inductive approaches to both answer research questions and identify patterns and themes that emerged in the data.
Measurements: Answers to questions about strategies for HHC support and themes about (1) how to facilitate physician adoption and use and (2) organizational concerns.
Results: Three main organizational strategies for HHC support were characterized among sites: (1) active support for broad-based use, (2) active support for niche use, and (3) basic support for individual physician users. Three high-level themes emerged around how to best facilitate physician adoption and use of HHCs: (1) improving usability and usefulness, (2) promoting HHCs and device use, and (3) providing training and support. However, four major themes also emerged related to organizations' concerns about HHC use: (1) security-related concerns, (2) economic concerns, (3) technical concerns, and (4) strategic concerns.
Conclusion: An organizational approach to HHC support that involves individualized attention to existing and potential physician users rather than one-size-fits-all, organization-wide implementation efforts was an important facilitator promoting physician use of HHCs. Health care organizations interested in supporting HHC use must consider issues related to security, economics, and IT strategy that may not be prominent concerns for physician users.
doi:10.1197/jamia.M1816
PMCID: PMC1205606  PMID: 15905482
12.  Principles for a Successful Computerized Physician Order Entry Implementation 
To identify success factors for implementing computerized physician order entry (CPOE), our research team took both a top-down and bottom-up approach and reconciled the results to develop twelve overarching principles to guide implementation. A consensus panel of experts produced ten Considerations with nearly 150 sub-considerations, and a three year project using qualitative methods at multiple successful sites for a grounded theory approach yielded ten general themes with 24 sub-themes. After reconciliation using a meta-matrix approach, twelve Principles, which cluster into groups forming the mnemonic CPOE emerged. Computer technology principles include: temporal concerns; technology and meeting information needs; multidimensional integration; and costs. Personal principles are: value to users and tradeoffs; essential people; and training and support. Organizational principles include: foundational underpinnings; collaborative project management; terms, concepts and connotations; and improvement through evaluation and learning. Finally, Environmental issues include the motivation and context for implementing such systems.
PMCID: PMC1480169  PMID: 14728129
13.  Building core capacities at the designated points of entry according to the International Health Regulations 2005: a review of the progress and prospects in Taiwan 
Global Health Action  2014;7:10.3402/gha.v7.24516.
Background
As designated points of entry (PoEs) play a critical role in preventing the transmission of international public health risks, huge efforts have been invested in Taiwan to improve the core capacities specified in the International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR 2005). This article reviews how Taiwan strengthened the core capacities at the Taoyuan International Airport (TIA) and the Port of Kaohsiung (PoK) by applying a new, practicable model.
Design
An IHR PoE program was initiated for implementing the IHR core capacities at designated PoEs. The main methods of this program were 1) identifying the designated PoEs according to the pre-determined criteria, 2) identifying the competent authority for each health measure, 3) building a close collaborative relationship between stakeholders from the central and PoE level, 4) designing three stages of systematic assessment using the assessment tool published by the World Health Organization (WHO), and 5) undertaking action plans targeting the gaps identified by the assessments.
Results
Results of the self-assessment, preliminary external assessment, and follow-up external assessment revealed a continuous progressive trend at the TIA (86, 91, and 100%, respectively), and at the PoK (77, 97, and 99.9%, respectively). The results of the follow-up external assessment indicated that both these designated PoEs already conformed to the IHR requirements. These achievements were highly associated with strong collaboration, continuous empowerment, efficient resource integration, and sustained commitments.
Conclusions
Considering that many countries had requested for an extension on the deadline to fulfill the IHR 2005 core capacity requirements, Taiwan's experiences can be a source of learning for countries striving to fully implement these requirements. Further, in order to broaden the scope of public health protection into promoting global security, Taiwan will keep its commitments on multisectoral cooperation, human resource capacity building, and maintaining routine and emergency capacities.
doi:10.3402/gha.v7.24516
PMCID: PMC4104008  PMID: 25037903
IHR 2005; core capacity requirements; points of entry; capacity building; cross-sectoral collaboration
14.  Physician order entry in U.S. hospitals. 
OBJECTIVE: Determine the percent of U.S. hospitals where computerized physician order entry (POE) is available and the extent of its use. METHODS: A survey was sent to a systematic sample of 1,000 U.S. hospitals asking about availability of POE, whether usage is required, percent of physicians using it, and percent of orders entered by computer. RESULTS: About 66% do not have POE available. Of the 32.1% that have it completely or partially available, 4.9% require its usage, over half report usage by under 10% of physicians, and over half report that fewer than 10% of orders are entered this way. Analysis of comments showed that many hospitals have POE available for use by non-physicians only, but that they hope to offer it to physicians after careful planning. CONCLUSION: Most U.S. hospitals have not yet implemented POE. Complete availability throughout the hospital is rare, very few require its use, low percentages of physicians are actual users, and low percentages of orders are entered this way. On a national basis, computerized order entry by physicians is not yet widespread.
PMCID: PMC2232213  PMID: 9929217
15.  Joy and Challenges in Improving Chronic Illness Care: Capturing Daily Experiences of Academic Primary Care Teams 
Journal of General Internal Medicine  2010;25(Suppl 4):581-585.
BACKGROUND
Two chronic care collaboratives (The National Collaborative and the California Collaborative) were convened to facilitate implementing the chronic care model (CCM) in academic medical centers and into post-graduate medical education.
OBJECTIVE
We developed and implemented an electronic team survey (ETS) to elicit, in real-time, team member’s experiences in caring for people with chronic illness and the effect of the Collaborative on teams and teamwork.
DESIGN
The ETS is a qualitative survey based on Electronic Event Sampling Methodology. It is designed to collect meaningful information about daily experience and any event that might influence team members’ daily work and subsequent outcomes.
PARTICIPANTS
Forty-one residency programs from 37 teaching hospitals participated in the collaboratives and comprised faculty and resident physicians, nurses, and administrative staff.
APPROACH
Each team member participating in the collaboratives received an e-mail with directions to complete the ETS for four weeks during 2006 (the National Collaborative) and 2007 (the California Collaborative).
KEY RESULTS
At the team level, the response rate to the ETS was 87% with team members submitting 1,145 narrative entries. Six key themes emerged from the analysis, which were consistent across all sites. Among teams that achieved better clinical outcomes on Collaborative clinical indicators, an additional key theme emerged: professional work satisfaction, or “Joy in Work”. In contrast, among teams that performed lower in collaborative measures, two key themes emerged that reflected the effect of providing care in difficult institutional environments—“lack of professional satisfaction” and awareness of “system failures”.
CONCLUSIONS
The ETS provided a unique perspective into team performance and the day-to-day challenges and opportunities in chronic illness care. Further research is needed to explore systematic approaches to integrating the results from this study into the design of improvement efforts for clinical teams.
doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1408-8
PMCID: PMC2940446  PMID: 20737233
chronic illness; team; joy in work; graduate medical education; ambulatory training; interprofessional training
16.  Considerations Regarding the Implementation of Computerized Physician Order Entry: Report of the Menucha Conference 
Implementation of computerized physician order entry (POE) is being increasingly encouraged as an important solution to the challenge of medical error reduction. Use of POE is not widespread, however, in part because it has a reputation for being difficult to implement. To identify success factors for implementing POE, a consensus conference of invited experts holding multiple perspectives was convened near Portland, Oregon on May 10 and 11, 2001. At a retreat center called Menucha, experts from around the world met with members of the Oregon Health & Science University's Physician Order Entry Team (POET) of researchers for the purpose of developing recommendations for POE implementation. Funded by a research grant from the National Library of Medicine, the Menucha consensus conference succeeded in identifying a set of conditions that should exist prior to POE implementation, agreed on considerations for successful implementation, and a list of other considerations that fostered debate within the group and deserve further exploration.
PMCID: PMC2243453
17.  Implementing medication reconciliation from the planner’s perspective: a qualitative study 
Background
Medication reconciliation can reduce adverse events associated with prescribing errors at transitions between sites of care. Though a U.S. Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal since 2006, at present organizations continue to have difficulty implementing it. The objective of this study was to examine medication reconciliation implementation from the perspective of individuals involved in the planning process in order to identify recurrent themes, including facilitators and barriers, that might inform other organizations’ planning and implementation efforts.
Methods
We performed semi-structured interviews with individuals who had a role in planning medication reconciliation implementation at a large urban academic medical center in the U.S. and its affiliated Veterans Affairs hospital. We queried respondents’ perceptions of the implementation process and their experience with facilitators and barriers. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. The themes that emerged were subsequently categorized using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
Results
There were 13 respondents, each with one or more organizational roles in quality improvement, information technology, medication safety, and education. Respondents described a resource- and time- intensive medication reconciliation planning process. The planning teams’ membership and functioning were recognized as important factors to a successful planning process. Implementation was facilitated by planners’ understanding of the principles of performance improvement, in particular, fitting the new process into the workflow of multiple disciplines. Nevertheless, a need for significant professional role changes was recognized. Staff training was recognized to be an important part of roll-out, but training had several limitations. Planners monitored compliance to help sustain the process, but acknowledged that this did not ensure that medication reconciliation actually achieved its primary goal of reducing errors. Study findings fit multiple constructs in the CFIR model.
Conclusions
Study findings suggest that to improve the likelihood of a successful implementation of medication reconciliation, planners should, among other considerations, involve a multidisciplinary planning team, recognize the significant professional role changes that may be needed, and consider devoting resources not just to compliance monitoring but also to monitoring of the process’ impact on prescribing.
doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-290
PMCID: PMC4226973  PMID: 24996538
Medication reconciliation; Adverse drug event; Patient safety; Implementation; National patient safety goals
18.  e-Health, m-Health and healthier social media reform: the big scale view 
Introduction
In the upcoming decade, digital platforms will be the backbone of a strategic revolution in the way medical services are provided, affecting both healthcare providers and patients. Digital-based patient-centered healthcare services allow patients to actively participate in managing their own care, in times of health as well as illness, using personally tailored interactive tools. Such empowerment is expected to increase patients’ willingness to adopt actions and lifestyles that promote health as well as improve follow-up and compliance with treatment in cases of chronic illness. Clalit Health Services (CHS) is the largest HMO in Israel and second largest world-wide. Through its 14 hospitals, 1300 primary and specialized clinics, and 650 pharmacies, CHS provides comprehensive medical care to the majority of Israel’s population (above 4 million members). CHS e-Health wing focuses on deepening patient involvement in managing health, through personalized digital interactive tools. Currently, CHS e-Health wing provides e-health services for 1.56 million unique patients monthly with 2.4 million interactions every month (August 2011). Successful implementation of e-Health solutions is not a sum of technology, innovation and health; rather it’s the expertise of tailoring knowledge and leadership capabilities in multidisciplinary areas: clinical, ethical, psychological, legal, comprehension of patient and medical team engagement etc. The Google Health case excellently demonstrates this point. On the other hand, our success with CHS is a demonstration that e-Health can be enrolled effectively and fast with huge benefits for both patients and medical teams, and with a robust business model.
CHS e-Health core components
They include:
1. The personal health record layer (what the patient can see) presents patients with their own medical history as well as the medical history of their preadult children, including diagnoses, allergies, vaccinations, laboratory results with interpretations in layman’s terms, medications with clear, straightforward explanations regarding dosing instructions, important side effects, contraindications, such as lactation etc., and other important medical information. All personal e-Health services require identification and authorization.
2. The personal knowledge layer (what the patient should know) presents patients with personally tailored recommendations for preventative medicine and health promotion. For example, diabetic patients are push notified regarding their yearly eye exam. The various health recommendations include: occult blood testing, mammography, lipid profile etc. Each recommendation contains textual, visual and interactive content components in order to promote engagement and motivate the patient to actually change his health behaviour.
3. The personal health services layer (what the patient can do) enables patients to schedule clinic visits, order chronic prescriptions, e-consult their physician via secured e-mail, set SMS medication reminders, e-consult a pharmacist regarding personal medications. Consultants’ answers are sent securely to the patients’ personal mobile device.
On December 2009 CHS launched secured, web based, synchronous medical consultation via video conference. Currently 11,780 e-visits are performed monthly (May 2011). The medical encounter includes e-prescription and referral capabilities which are biometrically signed by the physician. On December 2010 CHS launched a unique mobile health platform, which is one of the most comprehensive personal m-Health applications world-wide. An essential advantage of mobile devices is their potential to bridge the digital divide. Currently, CHS m-Health platform is used by more than 45,000 unique users, with 75,000 laboratory results views/month, 1100 m-consultations/month and 9000 physician visit scheduling/month.
4. The Bio-Sensing layer (what physiological data the patient can populate) includes diagnostic means that allow remote physical examination, bio-sensors that broadcast various physiological measurements, and smart homecare devices, such as e-Pill boxes that gives seniors, patients and their caregivers the ability to stay at home and live life to its fullest. Monitored data is automatically transmitted to the patient’s Personal Health Record and to relevant medical personnel.
The monitoring layer is embedded in the chronic disease management platform, and in the interactive health promotion and wellness platform. It includes tailoring of consumer-oriented medical devices and service provided by various professional personnel—physicians, nurses, pharmacists, dieticians and more.
5. The Social layer (what the patient can share). Social media networks triggered an essential change at the humanity ‘genome’ level, yet to be further defined in the upcoming years. Social media has huge potential in promoting health as it combines fun, simple yet extraordinary user experience, and bio-social-feedback. There are two major challenges in leveraging health care through social networks:
a. Our personal health information is the cornerstone for personalizing healthier lifestyle, disease management and preventative medicine. We naturally see our personal health data as a super-private territory. So, how do we bring the power of our private health information, currently locked within our Personal Health Record, into social media networks without offending basic privacy issues?
b. Disease management and preventive medicine are currently neither considered ‘cool’ nor ‘fun’ or ‘potentially highly viral’ activities; yet, health is a major issue of everybody’s life. It seems like we are missing a crucial element with a huge potential in health behavioural change—the Fun Theory. Social media platforms comprehends user experience tools that potentially could break current misconception, and engage people in the daily task of taking better care of themselves.
CHS e-Health innovation team characterized several break-through applications in this unexplored territory within social media networks, fusing personal health and social media platforms without offending privacy. One of the most crucial issues regarding adoption of e-health and m-health platforms is change management. Being a ‘hot’ innovative ‘gadget’ is far from sufficient for changing health behaviours at the individual and population levels.
CHS health behaviour change management methodology includes 4 core elements:
1. Engaging two completely different populations: patients, and medical teams. e-Health applications must present true added value for both medical teams and patients, engaging them through understanding and assimilating “what’s really in it for me”. Medical teams are further subdivided into physicians, nurses, pharmacists and administrative personnel—each with their own driving incentive. Resistance to change is an obstacle in many fields but it is particularly true in the conservative health industry. To successfully manage a large scale persuasive process, we treat intra-organizational human resources as “Change Agents”. Harnessing the persuasive power of ~40,000 employees requires engaging them as the primary target group. Successful recruitment has the potential of converting each patient-medical team interaction into an exposure opportunity to the new era of participatory medicine via e-health and m-health channels.
2. Implementation waves: every group of digital health products that are released at the same time are seen as one project. Each implementation wave leverages the focus of the organization and target populations to a defined time span. There are three major and three minor implementation waves a year.
3. Change-Support Arrow: a structured infrastructure for every implementation wave. The sub-stages in this strategy include:
Cross organizational mapping and identification of early adopters and stakeholders relevant to the implementation wave
Mapping positive or negative perceptions and designing specific marketing approaches for the distinct target groups
Intra and extra organizational marketing
Conducting intensive training and presentation sessions for groups of implementers
Running conflict-prevention activities, such as advanced tackling of potential union resistance
Training change-agents with resistance-management behavioural techniques, focused intervention for specific incidents and for key opinion leaders
Extensive presence in the clinics during the launch period, etc.
The entire process is monitored and managed continuously by a review team.
4. Closing Phase: each wave is analyzed and a “lessons-learned” session concludes the changes required in the modus operandi of the e-health project team.
PMCID: PMC3571141
e-Health; mobile health; personal health record; online visit; patient empowerment; knowledge prescription
19.  Proactive Office Encounter: A Systematic Approach to Preventive and Chronic Care at Every Patient Encounter 
The Permanente Journal  2010;14(3):38-43.
In 2007, Kaiser Permanente's (KP) Southern California Region designed and implemented a systematic in-reach program, the Proactive Office Encounter (POE), to address the growing needs of its three million patients for preventive care and management of chronic disease. The program sought staff from both primary and specialty care departments to proactively identify gaps in care and to assist physicians in closing those gaps. The POE engaged the entire health team in a proactive patient-care experience, creating standard work flows and using information technology to identify gaps in patient care. The goals were to improve consistency of preventive care and improve quality of care for chronic conditions and to improve reliability of staff support for physicians. The POE has been implemented in all outpatient settings in KP's Southern California Region's 13 medical centers and 148 medical office buildings. The program has contributed to significant improvements in key clinical quality metrics, including cancer screenings, blood pressure control, and tobacco cessation. It is now being extended into the inpatient setting and is being shared with other KP Regions.
PMCID: PMC2937843  PMID: 20844703
20.  Primum non nocere: could the health care system contribute to suffering? 
Canadian Family Physician  2006;52(12):1574.
OBJECTIVE
To explore terminally ill patients’ perceptions of their own suffering in order to describe, from these patients’ perspective, some elements of health care providers’ response to suffering.
DESIGN
Qualitative study using content analysis methods suited to a grounded theory approach.
SETTING
Teaching and nonteaching hospital oncology clinics, palliative care services (both ambulatory and in-unit), and family practices.
PARTICIPANTS
Twenty-six patients diagnosed with terminal cancer.
METHODS
Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data from each interview were coded and categorized to identify and define themes. Themes were discussed and refined until those rating them agreed on them. Data were collected until saturation of emerging issues was reached.
MAIN FINDINGS
In our health care system, patients are caught in a pervasive pattern of suffering avoidance, which in turn contributes to increased suffering. Health care services are perceived as a battlefield where physicians and patients are engaged in a losing struggle to ward off illness and death. Both physicians and patients engage in avoiding skepticism and muffling distress. The unavoidable avowal of powerlessness in the face of terminal disease is perceived as capitulation and therapeutic abandonment. Budgetary restraints and understaffing, along with a pervasive culture that implicitly denies death, produce an environment conducive to the avoidance of suffering. To counter this, health care practices that foster increased overlap and continuity between the spheres of oncology, palliative care, and family medicine seem worth developing.
CONCLUSION
The suffering of gravely ill patients might be hard to alleviate in the context of modern health care organizations. In some cases, health care delivery directly contributes to increased suffering. Providing support while also helping patients and their families to face upcoming harsh realities is a delicate balancing act that needs to be further explored.
PMCID: PMC1783759  PMID: 17279239
21.  Contextual Implementation Model: A Framework for Assisting Clinical Information System Implementations 
Objective
This paper presents a multiple perspectives model of clinical information system implementation, the Contextual Implementation Model (CIM). Although other implementation models have been developed, few are grounded in data and others fail to take adequate account of the clinical environment and users’ requirements.
Design
The CIM arose from qualitative data collected from four clinical units in two large Australian teaching hospitals. The aim of the study was to explore physicians’ test management work practices associated with the compulsory use of a hospital-wide, mandatory computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system.1 The dataset consisted of non-participatory observations of physicians using CPOE (n=55 sessions) and interviews with health professionals (n=28) about test management work practices. Data were analyzed by two researchers independently using an iterative grounded approach.
Results
A core underlying theme of ‘contextual differences’ emerged which explained physicians’ use of the CPOE system in the sites. The CIM focuses attention on diversity at three contextual levels: the organizational level; the clinical or departmental level, and the individual level. Within each of these levels there are dimensions for consideration (for example, organizational culture, leadership and diverse ways of working) which affect physicians’ attitudes to, and use of, CPOE.
Conclusion
The CIM provides a contextual differences perspective which can be used to facilitate the implementation of clinical information systems. Developing a clinical information system implementation model serves as a framework to guide future implementations to ensure their safe and efficient use and also improve the likelihood of uptake by physicians.
doi:10.1197/jamia.M2468
PMCID: PMC2274802  PMID: 18096917
22.  Issues Regarding the Implementation of eHealth: Preparing for Future Influenza Pandemics 
Background
eHealth is a tool that may be used to facilitate responses to influenza pandemics. Prior to implementation of eHealth in the hospital setting, assessment of the organizational preparedness is an important step in the planning process. Including this step may increase the chance of implementation success.
Objective
To identify the preparedness issues in relation to implementation of eHealth for future influenza pandemics.
Methods
One hospital was selected in Australia for this study. We conducted 12 individual interviews to gather a rich data set in relation to eHealth preparedness in the context of the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic at this major teaching hospital. These participants’ views were analyzed according to five main themes: (1) challenges in present practices or circumstances for pandemic responses, which indicates a need for change, (2) healthcare providers’ exposure to eHealth, (3) organizational technological capacity to support an IT innovation for medical practices, (4) resource preparedness, and (5) socio-cultural issues in association with eHealth implementation in response to a pandemic.
Results
This article reports a subset of the issues identified during the case study. These issues include, for example, poor sharing of patient health records, poor protection of patient privacy, clinicians’ concerns about IT reliability and dissatisfaction with the software in use, clinicians’ concerns about IT’s impact on professional autonomy versus having inefficient IT support, and inefficient communication across departments in the form of consultation.
Conclusions
Based on discussions with the participants and interpretation of their responses, we assessed the hospital’s preparedness status and also identified areas of deficiency. Accordingly, we suggest possible solutions for the areas in need of improvement to facilitate eHealth implementation’s success. The study results will also provide policymakers at national, state and local levels with insights to refine relevant public health policies for the planning and management of pandemics from the eHealth perspective.
doi:10.2196/ijmr.2357
PMCID: PMC3626132  PMID: 23611788
eHealth; influenza pandemic; preparedness assessment; case study
23.  Prescriber and staff perceptions of an electronic prescribing system in primary care: a qualitative assessment 
Background
The United States (US) Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 has spurred adoption of electronic health records. The corresponding meaningful use criteria proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services mandates use of computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems. Yet, adoption in the US and other Western countries is low and descriptions of successful implementations are primarily from the inpatient setting; less frequently the ambulatory setting. We describe prescriber and staff perceptions of implementation of a CPOE system for medications (electronic- or e-prescribing system) in the ambulatory setting.
Methods
Using a cross-sectional study design, we conducted eight focus groups at three primary care sites in an independent medical group. Each site represented a unique stage of e-prescribing implementation - pre/transition/post. We used a theoretically based, semi-structured questionnaire to elicit physician (n = 17) and staff (n = 53) perceptions of implementation of the e-prescribing system. We conducted a thematic analysis of focus group discussions using formal qualitative analytic techniques (i.e. deductive framework and grounded theory). Two coders independently coded to theoretical saturation and resolved discrepancies through discussions.
Results
Ten themes emerged that describe perceptions of e-prescribing implementation: 1) improved availability of clinical information resulted in prescribing efficiencies and more coordinated care; 2) improved documentation resulted in safer care; 3) efficiencies were gained by using fewer paper charts; 4) organizational support facilitated adoption; 5) transition required time; resulted in workload shift to staff; 6) hardware configurations and network stability were important in facilitating workflow; 7) e-prescribing was time-neutral or time-saving; 8) changes in patient interactions enhanced patient care but required education; 9) pharmacy communications were enhanced but required education; 10) positive attitudes facilitated adoption.
Conclusions
Prescribers and staff worked through the transition to successfully adopt e-prescribing, and noted the benefits. Overall impressions were favorable. No one wished to return to paper-based prescribing.
doi:10.1186/1472-6947-10-72
PMCID: PMC2996338  PMID: 21087524
24.  The Impact of Computerized Physician Order Entry on Medication Error Prevention 
Background: Medication errors are common, and while most such errors have little potential for harm they cause substantial extra work in hospitals. A small proportion do have the potential to cause injury, and some cause preventable adverse drug events.
Objective: To evaluate the impact of computerized physician order entry (POE) with decision support in reducing the number of medication errors.
Design: Prospective time series analysis, with four periods.
Setting and participants: All patients admitted to three medical units were studied for seven to ten-week periods in four different years. The baseline period was before implementation of POE, and the remaining three were after. Sophistication of POE increased with each successive period.
Intervention: Physician order entry with decision support features such as drug allergy and drug-drug interaction warnings.
Main outcome measure: Medication errors, excluding missed dose errors.
Results: During the study, the non-missed-dose medication error rate fell 81 percent, from 142 per 1,000 patient-days in the baseline period to 26.6 per 1,000 patient-days in the final period (P < 0.0001). Non-intercepted serious medication errors (those with the potential to cause injury) fell 86 percent from baseline to period 3, the final period (P = 0.0003). Large differences were seen for all main types of medication errors: dose errors, frequency errors, route errors, substitution errors, and allergies. For example, in the baseline period there were ten allergy errors, but only two in the following three periods combined (P < 0.0001).
Conclusions: Computerized POE substantially decreased the rate of non-missed-dose medication errors. A major reduction in errors was achieved with the initial version of the system, and further reductions were found with addition of decision support features.
PMCID: PMC61372  PMID: 10428004
25.  Organizational factors associated with readiness to implement and translate a primary care based telemedicine behavioral program to improve blood pressure control: the HTN-IMPROVE study 
Background
Hypertension is prevalent and often sub-optimally controlled; however, interventions to improve blood pressure control have had limited success.
Objectives
Through implementation of an evidence-based nurse-delivered self-management phone intervention to facilitate hypertension management within large complex health systems, we sought to answer the following questions: What is the level of organizational readiness to implement the intervention? What are the specific facilitators, barriers, and contextual factors that may affect organizational readiness to change?
Study design
Each intervention site from three separate Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs), which represent 21 geographic regions across the US, agreed to enroll 500 participants over a year with at least 0.5 full time equivalent employees of nursing time. Our mixed methods approach used a priori semi-structured interviews conducted with stakeholders (n = 27) including nurses, physicians, administrators, and information technology (IT) professionals between 2010 and 2011. Researchers iteratively identified facilitators and barriers of organizational readiness to change (ORC) and implementation. Additionally, an ORC survey was conducted with the stakeholders who were (n = 102) preparing for program implementation.
Results
Key ORC facilitators included stakeholder buy-in and improving hypertension. Positive organizational characteristics likely to impact ORC included: other similar programs that support buy-in, adequate staff, and alignment with the existing site environment; improved patient outcomes; is positive for the professional nurse role, and is evidence-based; understanding of the intervention; IT infrastructure and support, and utilization of existing equipment and space.
The primary ORC barrier was unclear long-term commitment of nursing. Negative organizational characteristics likely to impact ORC included: added workload, competition with existing programs, implementation length, and limited available nurse staff time; buy-in is temporary until evidence shows improved outcomes; contacting patients and the logistics of integration into existing workflow is a challenge; and inadequate staffing is problematic. Findings were complementary across quantitative and qualitative analyses.
Conclusions
The model of organizational change identified key facilitators and barriers of organizational readiness to change and successful implementation. This study allows us to understand the needs and challenges of intervention implementation. Furthermore, examination of organizational facilitators and barriers to implementation of evidence-based interventions may inform dissemination in other chronic diseases.
doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-106
PMCID: PMC3847033  PMID: 24010683
Implementation; Hypertension; Blood pressure control; Organization

Results 1-25 (975378)