Difference between revisions of "A qualitative cross-site study of physician order entry"
Terrycomeau (Talk | contribs) |
m |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Comments: The authors iterative study methods provide a helpful overview of elements which may facilitate the successful implementation of CPOE systems. | Comments: The authors iterative study methods provide a helpful overview of elements which may facilitate the successful implementation of CPOE systems. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Category:OHSU-F-06]] | ||
+ | [[Category:Reviews]] |
Revision as of 19:12, 10 December 2006
Introduction: CPOE has been shown to be effective in improving patient care. However, due to the complexity of CPOE implementation, fewer than 1/3 of US hospitals report using it. The authors use qualitative methods to study the success factors to such implementations.
Methods: The study design included an iterative approach over 7 years using focus groups, oral history interviews, and observations that were made by interdisciplinary teams. Several centers were studied based on their location, hospital type and experience with CPOE: University of Virginia (early negative experience with CPOE); Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care Systems (new installation of CPOE); El Camino Hospital in CA (community hospital without house officers but who pioneered an integrated hospital information system); and Kaiser Permanente Northwest (successful outpatient CPOE system).
Results: In centers with house staff, CPOE implementation was considered to be successful if some of the following criteria were present: able to enter orders from any location; ready access to results; decision support features present; included house officers in planning phase; integrated CPOE into workflow; and adequate training and support. In community hospitals without housestaff, implementation was considered successful if planning and deployment was done in a collaborative manner by nursing staff, physicians, and administration. Additional themes that emerged included: avoid misunderstandings; pay attention to context; attention to benefits and tradeoffs; adequate customization and organization of information; define the boundaries of CPOE; attention to ongoing training, support, and modifications; recognition of unintended consequences of CPOE; and attention to security.
Discussion: The use of such iterative studies facilitates the realization that CPOE implementation is highly complex process necessitating ongoing study to ensure future implementations and enhancements occur in a more efficient manner.
Comments: The authors iterative study methods provide a helpful overview of elements which may facilitate the successful implementation of CPOE systems.