Return on Investment for a Computerized Physician Order Entry System

Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (Impact Factor: 3.5). 05/2006; 13(3):261-6. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M1984
Source: DBLP


Although computerized physician order entry (CPOE) may decrease errors and improve quality, hospital adoption has been slow. The high costs and limited data on financial benefits of CPOE systems are a major barrier to adoption. The authors assessed the costs and financial benefits of the CPOE system at Brigham and Women's Hospital over ten years.
Cost and benefit estimates of a hospital CPOE system at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH), a 720-adult bed, tertiary care, academic hospital in Boston.
Institutional experts provided data about the costs of the CPOE system. Benefits were determined from published studies of the BWH CPOE system, interviews with hospital experts, and relevant internal documents. Net overall savings to the institution and operating budget savings were determined. All data are presented as value figures represented in 2002 dollars.
Between 1993 and 2002, the BWH spent $11.8 million to develop, implement, and operate CPOE. Over ten years, the system saved BWH $28.5 million for cumulative net savings of $16.7 million and net operating budget savings of $9.5 million given the institutional 80% prospective reimbursement rate. The CPOE system elements that resulted in the greatest cumulative savings were renal dosing guidance, nursing time utilization, specific drug guidance, and adverse drug event prevention. The CPOE system at BWH has resulted in substantial savings, including operating budget savings, to the institution over ten years.
Other hospitals may be able to save money and improve patient safety by investing in CPOE systems.

Download full-text


Available from: David W Bates,
  • Source
    • "As with any large organizational change initiative involving a major financial outlay, business cases are utilized to outline the underlying reasoning for ePrescribing implementations, including expected investments, benefits and timeframes [8]. This typically also includes the justification for desired changes tailored to individual organizational factors and is sometimes presented as an argument to obtain management commitment for the desired change [9]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a pressing need to understand the challenges surrounding procurement of and business case development for hospital electronic prescribing systems, and to identify possible strategies to enhance the efficiency of these processes in order to assist strategic decision making. We organized eight multi-disciplinary round-table discussions in the United Kingdom. Participants included policy makers, representatives from hospitals, system developers, academics, and patients. Each discussion was digitally audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and, together with accompanying field notes, analyzed thematically with NVivo9. We drew on data from 17 participants (approximately eight per roundtable), six hours of discussion, and 15 pages of field notes. Key challenges included silo planning with systems not being considered as part of an integrated organizational information technology strategy, lack of opportunity for interactions between customers and potential suppliers, lack of support for hospitals in choosing appropriate systems, difficulty of balancing structured planning with flexibility, and the on-going challenge of distinguishing "wants" and aspirations from organizational "needs". Development of business cases for major investments in information technology does not take place in an organizational vacuum. Building on previously identified potentially transferable dimensions to the development and execution of business cases surrounding measurements of costs/benefits and risk management, we have identified additional components relevant to ePrescribing systems. These include: considerations surrounding strategic context, case for change and objectives, future service requirements and options appraisal, capital and revenue implications, timescale and deliverability, and risk analysis and management.
    PLoS ONE 11/2013; 8(11):e79394. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0079394 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "• Reducing prescription, medication and transcription errors, adverse drug reaction (ADR), prescription fraud and litigation (48, 50, 53-61). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The tendency to use advanced technology in healthcare and the governmental policies have put forward electronic prescription. Electronic prescription is considered as the main solution to overcome the major drawbacks of the paper-based medication prescription, such as transcription errors. This study aims to provide practical information concerning electronic prescription system to a variety of stakeholders. In this review study, PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE databases, Iranian National Library Of Medicine (INLM) portal, Google Scholar, Google and Yahoo were searched for relevant English publications concerning the problems of paper-based prescription, and concept, features, levels, benefits, stakeholders and standards of electronic prescription system. There are many problems with the paper prescription system which, according to studies have jeopardized patients' safety and negatively affected the outcomes of medication therapy. All of these problems are remedied through the implementation of e-prescriptions. The sophistication of electronic prescription and integration with EHR will become a reality, if all its stakeholders collaborate in developing fast and secure electronic prescription systems. It is plausible that the required infrastructure should be provided for implementation of the national integrated electronic prescription systems in countries without the system. Given the barriers to the implementation and use, policymakers should consider multiple strategies and offer incentives to encourage e-prescription initiatives. This will result in widespread adoption of the system.
    10/2013; 15(10):e8436. DOI:10.5812/ircmj.8436
  • Source
    • "In our design we did not measure other potential system benefits such as avoidance of medical errors or reduction of adverse drug events. Therefore our conservative approach may underestimate the benefits of the new PDMS compared to [10,16-18]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient Data Management Systems (PDMS) support clinical documentation at the bedside and have demonstrated effects on completeness of patient charting and the time spent on documentation. These systems are costly and raise the question if such a major investment pays off. We tried to answer the following questions: How do costs and revenues of an intensive care unit develop before and after introduction of a PDMS? Can higher revenues be obtained with improved PDMS documentation? Can we present cost savings attributable to the PDMS? Retrospective analysis of cost and reimbursement data of a 25 bed Intensive Care Unit at a German University Hospital, three years before (2004--2006) and three years after (2007--2009) PDMS implementation. Costs and revenues increased continuously over the years. The profit of the investigated ICU was fluctuating over the years and seemingly depending on other factors as well. We found a small increase in profit in the year after the introduction of the PDMS, but not in the following years. Profit per case peaked at 1039 [euro sign] in 2007, but dropped subsequently to 639 [euro sign] per case. We found no clear evidence for cost savings after the PDMS introduction. Our cautious calculation did not consider additional labour costs for IT staff needed for system maintenance. The introduction of a PDMS has probably minimal or no effect on reimbursement. In our case the observed increase in profit was too small to amortize the total investment for PDMS implementation.This may add some counterweight to the literature, where expectations for tools such as the PDMS can be quite unreasonable.
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 09/2013; 13(1):107. DOI:10.1186/1472-6947-13-107 · 1.83 Impact Factor
Show more