Implementing a Pharmacy System: Facilitators and Barriers

Department of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, NE, # 622, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Journal of Medical Systems (Impact Factor: 2.21). 05/2009; 33(2):81-90. DOI: 10.1007/s10916-008-9167-3
Source: PubMed


To describe facilitators and barriers to the implementation of an inpatient pharmacy system at two pediatric hospitals. Interviews, pre- and post-implementation, were conducted with pharmacy and clinical managers. Key findings from the pre-implementation survey were included in the post-implementation survey to further assess facilitators and barriers to the adoption of a pharmacy system. The majority of pharmacy participants and all clinical leaders believed that project goals were being met. Pharmacist's described staff readiness-to-change as the most significant facilitator to adoption and concerns with the usability of information in the pediatric drug file as the most significant barrier. Clinical managers described system training and education as the most significant facilitator to adoption and adjustment to new work processes as the most significant barrier. We described major facilitators and barriers to the adoption of an inpatient pharmacy system at two pediatric hospitals. Strategies identified by our informants to overcome barriers may promote successful pharmacy implementations at other pediatric facilities.

Download full-text


Available from: Kimberly J Rask, Jan 14, 2016
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Context. A well-developed health information system which is implemented according to present standards allows a healthcare quality increase. Our study aims at providing an overview of the barriers which were encountered in the process of implementing the health information systems by reviewing the literature connected to Europe and the United States of America. Methodology. We searched within five databases (Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, PubMed, ScienceDirect and Scopus) for the exact phrase 'implementation health information system' along with the name of each European country/USA state. Relevance was then tested by scanning titles and abstracts. The third and final step involved assessing all the articles in order to set their relevance and a data extraction tool was created, containing the name of the state/country that the article reports data on, the article citation and the challenges identified. Results. The barriers identified were classified in four major categories: technical, organizational, behavioral/human and financial. Seemingly, Europe (41 articles) and USA (20 articles) are facing the same issues in the implementation of a health information system. No major difference between EU and non-EU countries was found after our analysis with regards to the identified barriers. Discussion. Even if recommendations and solutions are continuously being developed in order to solve these barriers, the implementation of a new health information system must be very detailed in order to face all these problems. Additionally, further research is required in order to evaluate their impact on the successful implementation of a health information system.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2013 · Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Although champions are commonly employed in health information technology (HIT) implementations, the state of empirical literature on HIT champions' is unclear. The purpose of our review was to synthesize quantitative and qualitative studies to identify the extent of research on the characteristics, behaviors, and impacts of HIT champions. Ultimately, our goal was to identify gaps in the literature and inform implementation science. Methods: Our review employed a broad search strategy using multiple databases-Embase, Pubmed, Cinahl, PsychInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library. We identified 1728 candidate articles, of which 42 were retained for full-text review. Results: Of the 42 studies included, fourteen studies employed a multiple-case study design (33 %), 12 additional articles employed a single-case study design (29 %), five used quantitative methods (12 %), two used mixed-methods (5 %), and one used a Delphi methodology (2 %). Our review revealed multiple categories and characteristics of champions as well as influence tactics they used to promote an HIT project. Furthermore, studies have assessed three general types of HIT champion impacts: (1) impacts on the implementation process of a specific HIT; (2) impacts on usage behavior or overall success of a specific HIT; and (3) impacts on general organizational-level innovativeness. However the extent to which HIT projects fail even with a champion and why such failures occur is not clear. Also unclear is whether all organizations require a champion for successful HIT project implementation. In other words, we currently do not know enough about the conditions under which (1) a health IT champion is needed, (2) multiple champions are needed, and (3) an appointed champion-as opposed to an emergent champion-can be successful. Conclusions: Although champions appear to have contributed to successful implementation of HIT projects, simply measuring the presence or absence of a champion is not sufficient for assessing impacts. Future research should aim for answers to questions about who champions should be, when they should be engaged, what they should do, how management can support their efforts, and what their impact is given the organizational context.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2015 · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making