Article: Evaluating the medication process in the context of CPOE use: the significance of working around the system.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the problems experienced after implementing a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system, their possible root causes, and the responses of providers in order to incorporate the system into daily workflow. METHODS: A qualitative study in the medication-use process after implementation of a CPOE system in an academic hospital in The Netherlands. Data included 21 interviews with clinical end-users, paper-based and system-generated documents used daily in the process, and educational materials used to train users. FINDINGS: The problems in the medication-use process included cognitive overload on physicians and nurses, unmet information needs, miscommunication of orders and ideas, problematic coordination of interrelated tasks between co-working professionals, a potentially faulty administration phase, and suboptimal monitoring of the medication plans. These problems were mainly rooted in the lack of mobile computer devices, the uneasy integration of coexisting electronic and paper-based systems, suboptimal usability of the system, and certain organizational factors with regard to procuring drugs affecting the technology use. Various types of workarounds were used to address the difficulties, including phone calls, taking multiple paper notes, issuing paper-based and verbal orders, double-checking, using other patients' procured drugs or another department's drug supply, and modifying and annotating the printed orders. CONCLUSION: This study shows how providers are actively involved in working around the interruptions in workflow by bypassing the technology or adapting the work processes. Although certain workarounds help to maintain smooth workflow and/or to ensure patient safety, others may burden providers by necessitating extra time and effort and/or endangering patient safety. It is important that workarounds having a negative nature are recognized and discussed in order to find solutions to mitigate their effects.Int J Med Inform. 07/2011; 80(7):490-506.
Article: What makes an information system more preferable for clinicians? a qualitative comparison of two systems.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Two different information systems with respect to their ability to afford clinicians' needs in the chemotherapy medication process were implemented in a large Dutch academic hospital. A commercially available Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) system was not appreciated because clinicians believed that it could not support complex chemotherapy process. Later, a home-grown IT system with the capability of prescribing chemotherapy medications based on standard care protocols was appreciated and fully used by clinicians. We evaluated both systems from their users' perspective to find the sources of clinicians' preference and to trace them back to their Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC).Studies in health technology and informatics 01/2011; 169:392-6.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To develop a set of recommendations for authors of qualitative studies in the field of health informatics, we conducted an extensive literature search and also manually checked major journals in the field of biomedical informatics and qualitative research looking for papers, checklists, and guidelines pertaining to assessing and reporting of qualitative studies. We synthesized the found criteria to develop an initial set of reporting recommendations that are particularly relevant to qualitative studies of health information technology systems. This paper presents a preliminary version of these recommendations. We are planning to refine and revise this version using comments and suggestions of experts in evaluation of health informatics applications and publish a detailed set of recommendations.Studies in health technology and informatics 01/2011; 169:877-81.
Article: CPOE in Non-Surgical Versus Surgical Specialties: A Qualitative Comparison of Clinical Contexts in the Medication Process.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems are implemented in various clinical contexts of a hospital. To identify the role of the clinical context in CPOE use, we compared the impact of a CPOE system on the medication process in both non-surgical and surgical specialties. We conducted a qualitative study of surgical and non-surgical specialties in a 1237-bed, academic hospital in the Netherlands. We interviewed the clinical end users of a computerized medication order entry system in both specialty types and analyzed the interview transcripts to elicit qualitative differences between the clinical contexts, clinicians' attitudes, and specialty-specific requirements. Our study showed that the differences in clinical contexts between non-surgical and surgical specialties resulted in a disparity between clinicians' requirements when using CPOE. Non-surgical specialties had a greater medication workload, greater and more diverse information needs to be supported in a timely manner by the system, and thus more intensive interaction with the CPOE system. In turn these factors collectively influenced the perceived impact of the CPOE system on the clinicians' practice. The non-surgical clinicians expressed less positive attitudes compared to the surgical clinicians, who perceived their interaction with the system to be less intensive and less problematic. Our study shows that clinicians' different attitudes towards the system and the perceived impact of the system were largely grounded in the clinical context of the units. The study suggests that not merely the CPOE system, the technology itself, influences the perceptions of its users and workflow-related outcomes. The interplay between technology and clinical context of the implementation environment also matters. System design and redesigning efforts should take account of different units' specific requirements in their particular clinical contexts.The Open Medical Informatics Journal 01/2010; 4:206-13.
Article: Impact of a computerized physician order entry system on nurse-physician collaboration in the medication process.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Due to their efficiency and safety potential, computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems are gaining considerable attention in in-patient settings. However, recent studies have shown that these systems may undermine the efficiency and safety of the medication process by impeding nurse-physician collaboration. To evaluate the effects of a CPOE system on the mechanisms whereby nurses and physicians maintain their collaboration in the medication process. SETTING AND METHODOLOGY: Six internal medicine wards at the Erasmus Medical Centre were included in this study. A questionnaire was used to record nurses' attitudes towards the effectiveness of the former paper-based system. A similar questionnaire was used to evaluate nurses' attitudes with respect to a CPOE system that replaced the paper-based system. The data were complemented and triangulated through interviews with physicians and nurses. Response rates for the analyzed questions in the pre- and post-implementation questionnaires were 54.3% (76/140) and 52.14% (73/140). The CPOE system had a mixed impact on medication work: while it improved the main non-supportive features of the paper-based system, it lacked its main supportive features. The interviews revealed more detailed supportive and non-supportive features of the two systems. A comparison of supportive features of the paper-based system with non-supportive features of the CPOE system showed that synchronisation and feedback mechanisms in nurse-physician collaborations have been impaired after the CPOE system was introduced. This study contributes to an understanding of the affected mechanisms in nurse-physician collaboration using a CPOE system. It provides recommendations for repairing the impaired mechanisms and for redesigning the CPOE system and thus for better supporting these structures.International Journal of Medical Informatics 07/2008; 77(11):735-44. · 2.41 Impact Factor