2Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) Project Summary & AnalysisThe Ohio State University Health System (OSUHS) began working toward the application of an electronic health record in the 1970s with the goal of improving the quality and efficiency of patient care, protecting private health information, and supporting the organization’s clinical research and teaching efforts. In the 1990s, OSUHS executives, including the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Executive Officer, formulated a strategic vision that included a computerized patient record (CPR). Subsequently, the Hospital Board of Trustees and the Medical Staff Administrative Committee approved the proposal and provided funding. Implementation of CPOE was seen as a crucial element of the CPR. Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) allows clinicians to order diagnostic tests, medications, and other procedures using computer systems at or near patient care areas. CPOE differs from other forms of computerized order entry in that a provider with decision-making authority directly enters the test request. 1In 1995, an OSUHS EHR multidisciplinary task force of physicians, clinical and administrative personnel, and information systems staff were selected to choose a medical records system that included paperless order transmission and results reporting, along with patient documentation, scheduling and a clinical results repository. 9
3Ohio State University Health System OSUHSA/P/SThe OSU HospitalsOSU and Harding Behavioral Healthcare and MedicineThe OSU Hospitals EastThe Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research InstituteQuick Facts800,000 patient visits/year6000 employees950 physicians500 residents850 medical studentsUp to 90,000 CPOE orders monthlyThe case study of Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) describes how the Ohio State University Health System (OSUHS) implemented CPOE software throughout their large multi-disciplinary healthcare network. OSHUS consists of four hospitals and 18 satellite ambulatory offices that process over 800,000 visits per year. In addition, OSHUS boasts a Level III neonatal intensive care unit, a Level I trauma center, organ transplant program, a rehabilitation hospital, a freestanding cardiac hospital, and a comprehensive cancer center that employ 6000 staff members—potential end users.6A/P/S – Ambulatory, Primary andSpecialty Care Offices
4Initiatives Towards EHR Board began initiatives towards an EHR in the 1970s:1970’s and 1980’s – ancillary systems and IS infrastructure put in place towards EHR implementationEarly 1990’s - strategic vision for a computerized patient record (CPR) was established. Implementation of CPOE seen as key element of CPR1Deployed Clinical Information System (CIS)Notes here:2000’sSee next slide
51980sEthernet networkHealth Level 7 (HL7) format for clinical informationElectronic document transmission enabled by interface engine1990sSingle front-end Clinical Information System (CIS)Siemens CPOE system and lifetime clinical record (LCR)2000sDeployment for CPOE systemElectronic discharge instruction (EDI)Patient scheduling systemOutpatient registration and billing system and electronic signature systemInformation warehouse for clinical and financial data access2010sInstallation of Siemens Soarian suiteDevelopment of clinical document imagingHaving worked toward an EHR since the 1970s, OSUHS was categorized as having a mature IT system in place, even at the time this article was written in The IT system was composed of the following interfaces: Clinical, ADT, Financial, Other.OSUHS had based the foundation of their IT system on one master patient index which was composed of an electronic medical record number for each patient. This decision would help OSUHS develop their very own proprietary A/D/T system, master patient index and patient billing system and help attain their EHR goal “to enhance quality and efficiency of patient care by providing a lifetime of complete patient information—across time and place…”In the next four decades, OSUHS proceeded in developing the EHR as technology advanced:• 1980s: Established Ethernet network, use of Health Level 7 (HL7) format for clinical information, electronic document transmission enabled by an interface engine.• 1990s: Deployment of single front-end Clinical Information System (CIS) allowing user query through the master patient index and selection of Siemens CPOE system and lifetime clinical record (LCR).• 2000s: Deployment of CPOE system that allowed for bedside documentation, electronic discharge instruction (EDI), a patient scheduling system, outpatient registration and billing system and electronic signature system. Creation of information warehouse for clinical and financial data access.• 2010s: Plans for installation of Siemens Soarian suite and development of clinical document imaging to integrate paper-based charts from other facilities.
6Measures of SuccessDevelopment of a portable and scalable system that could be implemented across diverse and physically distinct clinical environmentsIdentification of the physician as the primary user, and customization of the system to meet physicians' needsClinical acceptance.In order to gauge their success, the EHR task force developed three measures of achievement to include: (1) Development of a portable and scalable system that could be implemented across diverse and physically distinct clinical environments; (2) Identification of the physician as the primary user, and customization of the system to meet physicians' needs; (3) Clinical acceptance. 1
75 Phases of CPOE Implementation Needs analysis and clinical system selectionSystem analysis and designSystem modificationInitial system implementationComplete system deploymentEven though IT systems utilized at OSUHS were always on the cutting edge and considered to be ”mature” when compared to similar institutions, the implementation of CPOE would take five years to see fruition. The implementation was broken down into five phases:1. Needs analysis and clinical system selection2. System analysis and design3. System modification4. Initial system implementation5. Complete system deployment1
8Needs Analysis and Clinical System Selection Initial Assessment Physician Order Entry System Requirements1:Easy maintenance of the system.Capable of supporting advancing technologies and migration paths.All order requirements met for the patients' medical records.Stability and intuitive use.Business, clinical and ancillary system interfaces.Implementation support of best practice and clinical practice guidelines.Easily expanded system for a variety of clinical users and environments.Physician Order Entry System RequirementsThe EHR task force began working on the development of a manageable system that could be easily upgraded and implemented across different but distinct clinical settings. Additional goals included improving patient safety, reworking business processes, and resolving delays due to flow of orders and results. The team conducted surveys and interviews of clinicians and performed a workflow analysis, subsequently establishing the criteria for the most important system requirements, which included:Easy maintenance of the system.Capability of supporting advancing technologies and migration paths.Must meet all order requirements for the patients' medical record.Is stable, and its use is intuitive.Interfaces with business, clinical, and ancillary systems.Supports implementation of best practice and clinical practice guidelines.Can be easily expanded for a variety of clinical users and environments.1
9Needs Analysis and Clinical System Selection Vendor Selection Why Siemens Chosen as CPOE Vendor:Integrated with in-house CPR componentsServed inpatient and ambulatory environmentsGraphical user interfaceData dictionaryNEEDS ANALYSIS AND CLINICAL SYSTEM SELECTIONIn keeping with the strategic goal of a computerized patient record (CPR), in 1995 the executive leadership at OSUHS selected a clinical communications committee consisting of physicians from 12 different specialties and representatives from nursing, information systems, quality and operations improvement, radiology, pharmacy, administration, purchasing and medical information management. This committee was charged with determining the IT system needs that would support computerized physician order entry (CPOE). The system chosen would need to provide: 1) Paperless order communications, (2) Results reporting, (3) Patient documentation, Scheduling, Clinical repository.After studying workflow processes in all departments and gathering input from the potential users by survey and interview, the clinical communications committee reported back to executive leadership the system’s core features, the tools required for evaluation and the final request for proposal. The funding was secured and a vendor-based software was determined to be the best choice for OSUHS due to the lower cost when compared to in-house development and the continual upgrades offered by a vendor to maintain industry standards.The Siemens CPOE system met OSUHS’s selection criteria but also:• Integrated well with the CPR components already in place• Served both inpatient and ambulatory environments• Offered a graphical user interface for analyzing clinical results• Offered data dictionary recognized similar data from different systems so the date could be used for comparison and study.9
10System Analysis and Design Physician Consultant TeamSpecialties Represented:Emergency MedicineOncologyGynecologyPulmonaryCardiologySurgical OncologySurgical TransplantPathologyRadiologyGeneral MedicineClinical StaffLaboratoryPharmacyNursingRespiratory TherapyInformation Systems DepartmentResponded to clinical recommendations by:Rapid application development principlesPrototype approvalPathway design for reviewSystem Analysis and DesignCPOE Development TeamSYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGNThe next step was to form the CPOE development team. This team, much like the clinical communications committee, was composed of various clinical staff from the laboratory, pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy and radiology. The input of this team would then report their recommendations to the IS department.In order for the CPOE system to be successfully developed, the OSUHS executive committee knew it would need to be physician centered and thus they selected a physician consultant team composed of ten physicians. To demonstrate their commitment and their respect for physician input, the executive leadership mandated the physician members be compensated for time spent away from clinical duties. In addition to reinforce the importance of their newly assigned positions, OSUHS executive leadership had each physician sign a contract which outlined their responsibilities and expected outcomes.This executive strategy in making the CPOE design “physician centered” was a key factor in the successful implementation of the CPOE system. It is well known in any healthcare organization that a physician’s approval and support are catalysts for any project. It was decided early in the design phase that all order entries would be electronic and 100% would be physician orders. There would be no opportunity for “user revolt,” going back to paper would not be an option once CPOE was instituted.9 To this end, the physician consultant team was instrumental in reassuring clinical staff that a sound system would be carefully devised so that such a bold electronic endeavor would be delivered.
11System Analysis and Design Physician CenteredAll orders are electronic.All orders are physician orders.Order sets are designed by physician shadowing.Physician feedback and participation led to successful rollout.System Analysis and DesignPhysician Centered DesignThe next core design feature addressed was the development of order sets, and the expertise provided by the physician consultant team was invaluable here as well. Order sets are the clinical guidelines or workflow processes that are specified for each patient diagnosis or treatment plan. Over 450 order sets were designed by the physician consultant team after shadowing doctors and seeing first-hand current workflow processes. The development of the order sets also tackled issues such as patient safety, quality and standardization of patient care, cost and automated alerts.Another rule established early was that there would be no physician-specific order set so the clinical content of the order sets was the result of clinical teamwork involving the physicians, nurses, pharmacists and any other clinician involved with a particular diagnosis or treatment.The IT department was then charged with translation of the order sets into CPOE format following which the physician consultant team designed a working prototype based upon intensive study of current workflow processes across the entire enterprise at OSUHS. The prototype was developed with consistency of system design and data entry the most important aspect. Even though each clinical and ancillary department dictated different needs, standardization of processes had to be adopted to support the mandated 100% electronic order entry and in turn endorsing screen recognition and ease of use for physicians, no matter where data entry might take place in the enterprise.The final working prototype was revealed to an array of physician users, and though time and labor intensive, the physician feedback and participation garnered physician satisfaction throughout the process—proving to be another key success factor in implementation
12System Modification Decision Support Tools SYSTEM MODIFICATION Alerts for Patient AllergiesAlerts for Drug InteractionDrug Route RestrictionWeight-based DosingOrder Duplicate CheckingSystem ModificationDecision Support ToolsSYSTEM MODIFICATIONAccess was granted for users with their name and password. Passwords would expire every three months. Data privileges would be determined by the clinician’s role. Physicians would be granted access to a patient’s current order set, view and select from order sets or write an individual order. Nurses could review outstanding orders and print worklists. Medical management would print a cumulative order set and medication administration record at the time of the patient’s discharge.CPOE was designed so that medication orders were sent directly to the pharmacy and orders re-entered into the Pharmacy Information System. The IS team had to carefully translate time and day of week for medication orders so that all ancillary departments understood clearly the instructions for administration, especially with respect to the day of the week and the time of day. For example, if a postsurgical candidate is ordered nothing by mouth for 24 hours, the order must specify the timeframe to begin and end the order.Decision support tools naturally evolved from the order sets such as default order components, limiting certain high-risk ordering, expediting compliance, and best ordering practices in pharmacy. System alerts and rules positively impact patient safety (by notifying the clinical user of the patient’s medication allergies) and continuity of care (by notifying the clinical user of drug interactions with medications already prescribed by another physician).
13Initial Implementation Pilot Studies February through October, 1998February 15, 2000Check of System Functionality23-Bed OSU Transplant Surgery UnitInitially, a system functionality check was performed from February through October of Since the plan was to input all orders electronically, CPOE had to be integrated with all of the ancillary systems before the pilot study on one inpatient unit. After delays due to Y2K concerns, the pilot application of the CPOE on the 23-bed surgical transplant unit was performed in February, ,9Pilot testing allowed for validation of system design and stability, identification of system enhancements and modifications, data metrics for system goals, and development of in-house expert clinical users to provide support for future implementation in Ohio State University’s health system. 9Improvements following the pilot included the programming of 450 order sets and providing additional training and support staff.9 Each physician specialty identified the order sets they would need to care for the majority of patients admitted to their clinical area. Until the necessary order sets were created, it was determined that a POE live date could not be established. Once the order sets were approved and available for physician use, the decision was made to phase in CPOE by an entire hospital at a time. 1
14Complete System Deployment Initial DeploymentComplete ImplementationApril 4, 2000 – Go Live DateThe James Cancer HospitalBy April, 2001, Go Live atThe University HospitalDodd Hall Rehabilitation HospitalFinally, a system go-live date was chosen for April 4, 2000, at the James Cancer Hospital. Since all orders would be entered electronically, an entire hospital would be the best way to see how well all clinical and ancillary departments were integrated to respond to all physician orders. From that day forward, all order entry has been electronic, 80% by physicians and all orders electronically countersigned by physicians.Nearly a year after the pilot deployment, CPOE was fully implemented at The University Hospital (excluding women and infant units) and the Dodd Hall Rehabilitation Hospital.After each go-live date, the information systems staff remained available 24 hours a day for one month. The IS staff realized that CPOE mandated on-site help to readily troubleshoot any problems the clinicians might experience to keep workflow delays to a minimum and to foster user confidence. Again recognizing the importance of physician support and validation of CPOE, the executive leadership released key physicians from many clinical duties so that their time could be devoted to fine tuning clinical processes for order entry across an entire hospital site.
15Clinical Improvements after CPOE Implementation Patient Safety MeasuresReduced errors in medication ordersImproved medication deliveryReduced laboratory report timeReduced radiology report timeContinuity of Care MeasuresImproved discharge instructionsFinancial MeasuresExpedited billing processesReduced cost in printing formsContinuous Quality Improvement MeasuresBefore CPOEAfter CPOETranscription Errors26.2%0%Medication Delivery5:281:51Radiology Completion7:374:21Lab ResultsReporting31.3 min.23.4 min.Counter-signature at Discharge56.36%99.5%IMMEDIATE CLINICAL IMPROVEMENTSIn just two years from the initial pilot testing at the James Cancer Hospital, OSUHS was able to see a substantial return on their investment of time and money for the CPOE project.•Patient Safety Measures- Transcription errors in medication orders have been eradicated. When a side by side comparison was made of two different units in the hospital, one unit that used electronic input with CPOE and one unit that still uses paper orders, the results were impressive—0% for the electronic CPOE and 26.2% transcription error rate with paper records.- Medication delivery time was greatly improved—by 64%, from 5:28 to 1:51 hours.- Reporting time of results by the laboratory was reduced by 25%.- Completion time for radiology procedures was reduced by 43%• Continuity of Care Measures- Dispensation of discharge instructions is improved by better detail and includes a list of discharge medications.- At the time of discharge, the patient is instructed in follow up care, clinical contact information, pending appointments and prescriptions. All instructions are printed and a copy is given to the patient before discharge.• Financial Measures- The physician countersignature now can take place at the time of discharge, thus expediting billing processes. Consistent with OSUHS CPOE policy, only the physician can enter the order for discharge, and all prior outstanding orders for that patient must be addressed by that physician before the discharge order can be executed.- The expense for printing order forms has been almost eliminated.- Billing processes have been streamlined by the ability to audit legible physician orders.•Continuous Quality Improvement Measures- Order sets are scrutinized. An order placed outside the predetermined protocols is reviewed and then addition or revision of an order set is decided.- The operations staff is able to assess and manage quality better with an enhanced data warehouse based on the order entry information.9
16Key Success Factors for CPOE Implementation MultidisciplinaryMultidisciplinary CommitteeDevelopment of comprehensive protocols and toolsDevelopment of widely accepted protocols and toolsSoftwareSoftware IntegrationData from CIS easily integratedGraphical user permits graphing and trending resultsData dictionary permits shared informationRolloutRapid DeploymentMaximal Physician UtilizationHigh Scalability and PortabilityThe successful utilization of the CPOE software at OSUHS was due to a carefully planned, yet rapid implementation which consisted of:Establishment of multidisciplinary committee that included physicians, nurses and pharmacists.Each clinical group had a voice in the development of over 450 order protocols.Each group helped define the decision support to ensure best ordering practices.Selection of a software product that could integrate easily with OSUHS’s proprietary components and seamlessly maintain workflow processes among the clinical workstations and ancillary departments.Probably one of the biggest factors in choosing Siemens’ CPOE software was the fact that it could easily integrate with all of the data from the Clinical Information System (CIS) that had been stored on the previously installed Siemens’ legal clinical record (LCR).The Siemens graphical user interface would permit graphing and trending of clinical results.The Siemens data dictionary would allow similar information from different systems to be utilized for comparison.Decision to proceed with a rapid rollout plan.Being a teaching hospital, the medical staff at OSUHS changes quarterly so it was mandatory that the rollout be implemented with the current clinical staff fully trained and most “bugs” worked out before the next staff rotation.9
17Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) Project critique
18Grade: A Strategic IS Planning Advance organizational and IT strategic planning was not directly discussed in this case study. However it is evident that strategic planning was conducted.Grade: AOSUHS had an EHR philosophy and stated goal.EHR goal: “enhance quality and efficiency of patient care by providing a lifetime of complete patient information – available across time and place – with safeguards for patient privacy and support for teaching and clinical research”9Board began initiatives towards an EHR in the 1970s:1970’s and 1980’s – ancillary systems and IS infrastructure put in place towards EHR implementationEarly 1990’s - strategic vision for a computerized patient record (CPR) was established. Implementation of CPOE seen as key element of CPR1Deployed Clinical Information System (CIS)A similar comprehensive integrated health care delivery system, Adventist Health System, spent 4 years migrating all of its hospitals to the same core clinical system.7Board provided funding for CPOE1 in early 1990sStrategic IS PlanningCharacteristics of the organization:4 hospital comprehensive integrated health care delivery systemComputing environment:Numerous business & clinical systemsOne MPIMRN since 1970’sClinical apps include: see studyBusiness systems include: see studyEHR philosophy and goal – enhance quality and efficiency of patient care by providing a lifetime of complete patient information – available across time and place – with safeguards for patient privacy and support for teaching and clinical researchBegan work towards EHR implementationin the 1970’s by:installing core ancillary systemsdeveloped own ADT system, MPI, patient billingin the 1980’sestablished Ethernet networkused HL7 formatrouted thru interface enginebegan electronic transcription of documentsin 1990Deployed Clinical Information System (CIS) aka EHR
19SDLC stage 1. System Planning Recommended that physicians be the primary users of CPOE, with all subsequent decisions driven by this premise1Heavy physician focus. Best ROI would occur if physicians interacted directly with the system.Patient-safety focused strategies support the physician as the primary user of the CPOE system and are felt to positively influence physician acceptanceDeveloped three measurement criteria for successful CPOE implementationBroad system deployment across diverse clinical environmentsPhysicians as primary usersClinician acceptance of the systemCorrect project planning structure in place:Information Systems Steering CommitteeTask Force SubcommitteeMultidisciplinary project team, physician consultantsExcellent system planning occurred:Defined specific goals, Analyzed and identified user needs and concerns, Established selection criteria, Conducted clinician surveys and interviews, Performed workflow analysis, Assembled list of CPOE requirements1Recommendation made to move forward with selection of vendor-based solution1Recommendations also made for future phases of the project11995 multi-disciplinary team appointed by Information Systems Steering Committee to study and recommend order communications and clinical patient repository solutionsInformation Systems Steering CommitteeChaired by Medical Director of OSU HospitalsClinical communications task forceChaired by attending physician in CardiologyMulti-disciplinary membersEHR oversight committeeGoals:Improving patient safetyBusiness process re-engineeringExpedition of patient careUser concerns/needs:Dissatisfaction with order transcription processConcerns about costs incurred by inefficiencies in paper-intensive environment
20SDLC stage 1. System Planning, continued It is interpreted from the case study that change management was acknowledged early on as a key factor and CSFs were identified. Based on the literature, the three top CSFs have been identified as:1) the “before go-live training”;2) adequate clinical resources during implementation; and3) the time needed for physicians to enter orders into CPOE.4These CSFs, and several more, were addressed during the system planning, design and implementation stages of this project.The only blemish regarding system planning had to do with flawed resource allocation and project scheduling:Project stopped for 14 months as the IT department had to divert resources to prepare systems for Year 2000Funding:Administration and IS worked to secure fundingIdentification of CSFs – not discussed here but obviously determined in advanceCommittee decided that best ROI would occur if physicians interacted directly with the systemChange Management (not specifically referred to)Patient-safety focused strategies support the physician as the primary user of the CPOE system and are felt to positively influence physician acceptance 1Ongoing research and planning has allowed them to make continual progress toward achieving EHR goal – i.e.Siemens Soarian suite install thru 2010 andclinical document imaging solutionDeveloped three measurement criteria for successful CPOE implementationBroad system deployment across diverse clinical environmentsPhysicians as primary usersClinician acceptance of the systemGrade: B
21SDLC stage 2. System Analysis Phase 1 - Preliminary investigationCase study does not discuss preliminary investigation activities.According to the literature it is generally accepted in the healthcare industry that the patient care, quality and standardization benefits of CPOE have already been well documented and accepted. Therefore preliminary investigation activity can be minimal.Phase 2 – Detailed AnalysisExisting processes were studiedFunctional needs were assessedCommittee determined core featuresExcellent physician resources allocated to design and analysis phase:1Non-physician clinical personnel assigned to project full-timeFormalized physician consultant team established and empowered to approve system design and policiesValidation from other physicians, particularly house staff, was soughtEfforts to standardize practices and policies across the enterprise became an integral part of the CPOE project1Determined that advance creation of order sets were necessary to facilitate physician utilization and promote clinical standardization1Stage 2: Systems AnalysisPhase 1. Preliminary investigationPhase 2. Detailed analysisFunctionality needed:Paperless order communicationsResults reportingPatient documentationSchedulingClinical repositoryCommittee determined the core features:Phase 3: Technical analysisGrade: A
22SDLC stage 3. System Design Phase 1 – System designSystem design was adequately done.Customer requirements were converted into system specsDecision made to purchase vendor CPOE with integration to existing ancillary systemsPhase 2 – System evaluationProper system evaluation activities were conducted. This included:Committee designed the selection processCommittee developed the evaluation toolsCommittee discussed benefits of CPOE during development of RFPCommittee approved contents of RFPPhase 3 – System selectionProper system selection activities were conducted. This included:Final RFP developmentDemosSite visitsUser interviewsSystem comparisons to key attributesThis stage was also used to identify CSFs via interviews with CPOE system usersStage 3: Systems DesignPhase 3-1. System Design (Unit 3 Part 1)Key design decision was that all orders were to be input electronicallyThe CPOE system had to be integrated with all the ancillary systemsPhase 3-2. System Evaluation (Unit 3 Part 2)Exhaustive studyCommittee designed the selection processCommittee developed the evaluation toolsCommittee discussed benefits of CPOE during development of RFPCommittee approved contents of RFPPhase 3-3. System Selection (Unit 3 Part 2)Responses from RFP narrowed to 2Detailed demos were conductedReferences were queriedSite visits were held
23SDLC stage 3. System Design, continued Phase 4 - Design of CPOE prototype:It is important to standardize as many elements of the system and resulting work processes as possible across different environments.2 Understanding current-state workflows and redesigning inefficient processes are critical steps to ensuring successful adoption of CPOE. CPOE is a disruptive technology that fundamentally changes the processes used to place, review, authorize, and carry out orders.3To accomplish this Task Force subcommittee embarked on customizing the vendor system based on Physician consultant team recommendations and results of extensive workflow analysis.Design of the CPOE prototype involved adapting and customizing the selected system. This was needed to integrate design specs recommended by physician consultant team.1 This included:Foundation order elementsOrder work flowScreen designUser interface consistency across all departmentsDecision support tools such as order defaults, best-practice order sets and clinical rules.A critical foundation for CPOE is the rapid development of order sets prior to deployment. A solid development plan must be built based on clinician workflow.8Talked to CPOE system users about what they would do differently during implementationValue of physician championsNeed to have IS staff available for training and to help troubleshootSystems were compared based upon key attributesSelected Siemens CPOE and LCRRecommendation forwarded to Information Systems Steering CommitteeEndorsed by samePurchase and installation project planning began nextAlso, selected Siemens Soarian suite (financial solution) for install thru 2010Specific reasons Siemens CPOE was selected:Siemens was selected in part because it would integrate well with the other EHR system components in placeBased on past experience, interface between physician order and ancillary systems was possibleImpressed with system’s graphical user interfaceImpressed with data dictionaryImpressed with technical platform – client-server architectureImpressed with flexibility
24SDLC stage 3. System Design, continued Phase 4 - Design of CPOE prototype, ctd.:Development of order sets was approached in a systematic fashion for all departments. In fact it became policy not to implement CPOE system on a nursing unit serving a particular specialty until the necessary order sets had been developed and coded for use. Over 450 standardized order sets were created.2Each ancillary department had to ensure that order sets were created for all their common orders. “This reengineering was achieved by order pathway and order set development through faculty consensus and strong registered nurse informatics capability with full time RN’s working in the IS department to translate the clinical requirements into electronic format.”6The Task Force and physician consultant team reviewed all orderable services in order to automate workflow all the way through the ancillary departments.6Screen design and user interfaces were developed to be as consistent and standardized as possible.Notes hereGrade: A
25SDLC stage 4. Implementation Project implementation plan was excellent.Project success was assured because CSFs were identified in advance and plans executed to implement those factors. By involving physicians at all levels throughout the process and emphasizing the correlation between CPOE and improved patient care and safety, outstanding physician buy-in and participation was achieved.Continuous, frequent training and retraining are critical to the success of inpatient CPOE initiatives3. Therefore multiple training and support programs were implemented, including the use of “red-coats” and super- users. In addition, permanent clinical support positions were created. An effective campaign of change management was implemented.Keys to project success were: the focus on the physician as the primary user; the intense concentration on physician participation on all levels; and the advance creation of order sets during system design.There was an effective pilot program initiated to validate system design stability and further system enhancements and process improvements. This was similar to Adventist Health System which used pilots to test and build methodology needed for CPOE rollout to the other hospitals and units.7Stage 4. Implementation (Unit 4, Part 1)With installation of LCR, all data in CIS repository back-loaded into permanent storage in DB2 databaseCPOE deployed inPrior to CPOE deployment (between 1990 and 2000) OSUHS had enhanced its EHR with:Bedside documentation system (Clinicomp)Electronic discharge instruction (EDI)Patient scheduling system (IDX)Outpatient registration and billing (IDX)Electronic signature (SoftMed)Information warehouseReplaced ADT and billing systems with SiemensWorking to install PACS in radiologyBefore CPOE implementation, order sets had been establishedEvidence based guidelines; Developed by multi-disciplinary groups which included physicians, nurses and pharmacists; Approved by the Leadership Council for Clinical Value Enhancement;Facilitated physician utilization of the system; Helped promote clinical standardization of care
26SDLC stage 4. Implementation, continued Implementation included a phased install in different areas of the hospitals. “100% of orderable services were available at the time of each of these installs. All medications, imaging studies, nursing activities, diets, consults, and labs were orderable electronically at the time of CPOE rollout.”6Based on studies from the Leapfrog Group2, the implementation time period was longer than the implementation time for similar healthcare organizations (12 to 30 months). This was attributable to the upfront work in systems design to create standardized order sets - the “first two years of implementation were focused on system programming to meet comprehensive physician workflow requirements. This time was necessary to develop a product that was acceptable for physician use.”1Similarly, Adventist Health System, prior to CPOE implementation, invested more than two years in development of evidence- and expert-based content based around order sets.7It is believed that this extra time was well spent as it led to smoother implementation where physicians and clinicians were able to immediately realize the potential for improvements in patient care and safetyImplementation project planNeed for physician consultantsFunds budgeted for physician release time to participate in:Building and reviewing order setsDesigning screensReviewing flow of information within the systemDesigning rules and alertsConsulting on other components of the system10 member physician consulting team was empowered to approve system design and operational policySystem implementation planning staff shadowed doctors to learn more about current processLearned that house staff gave most of the orders so the house staff leaders were involved so they could understand and support CPOETraining conducted for physicians shortly before implementation“Red coat” staff members available 24/7 during initial implementation & trainingAfter, at the IS Help deskRule: Red coat went immediately to physician rather than trying to fix over phoneKey clinicians released from their clinical duties to focus on issue resolutionLessons learned:Physician leadership critical to successAdministrative commitment to aggressive rollout planSlow rollout would be difficult for house staff to supportSystem should be fully implemented before new staff starts in next hiring season (so new hires only had to learn one system)Review of flow of information and clinical staff levels was considered so that additional PCs and printers, if needed, could be installed before go-liveThere was no mention of CPOE- themed kickoff events that are recommended as part of change management.This, along with the lengthy implementation period, are two items that affected their grade.Grade: A-
27SDLC stage 5. System Support System requests and feedback were solicited from users in a variety of ways. These included help-desk phone calls, conversations with red coats, , intranet forms, communication with IS staff, and multiple meetings.Support requests were monitored. There was a decline in user modification and enhancement requests since implementation.Types of requests were tracked. None required significant changes to the system.There was no mention of a CQI program.Operational and maintenance costs were not discussed.Cost savings from process improvements and physician time were not evaluated.6Notes hereUser requests for enhancements and modifications. 1Number of tickets (y axix) vs. Months gone by (x axis)Grade: B
28ReferencesAhmad, A., Teater, P., Bentley, T.D., Kuehn, L., Kumar, R.R., Thomas, A., & Mekhjian, H.S. (2002). Key attributes of a successful physician order entry system implementation in a multi-hospital environment. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Jan-Feb; 9(1), pp.16–24.First Consulting Group, Leapfrog Group. (2003). Computerized physician order entry: Cost, benefits and challenges; A case study approach. Retrieved from AHA_FAH_CPOE_Report.pdfU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, National Resource Center for Health Information Technology. (2009). Inpatient computerized provider order entry (CPOE), findings from the AHRQ Health IT Portfolio (AHRQ Publication No EF). Retrieved fromAltuwaijri, M.M., Bahanshal, A., & Almehaid, M. (2011). Implementation of computerized physician order entry in National Guard hospitals: Assessment of critical success factors. Journal of Family & Community Medicine, Sep-Dec; 18(3), 143–151. doi: /Notes here
29References, continued Not used. Ahmad, A., Rucker, D.W., & Teater, P. (2002) Implementing end-to-end computerized physician order entry. Proceedings of the 2002 Annual HIMSS Conference & Exposition, Session 109. Retrieved fromPrestigiacomo, J. (2011). Automating CPOE success: How Adventist Health System systemized its CPOE rollout in 26 hospitals over 28 months. Healthcare Informatics, Nov. issue. Retrieved fromFear, F. (2011). Governance first, technology second to effective CPOE deployment. Health Management Technology, Aug. issue. Retrieved from first-technology-second-to-effective-cpoe-deployment.phpCurtis, E.H., (2004). Studies in EHR implementation: Computerized physician order entry. AHIMA On Demand series. Retrieved from HINF4519 Systems Design & Implementation D2L course content.Notes here