Article

Overcoming Barriers to the Implementation of a Pharmacy Bar Code Scanning System for Medication Dispensing: A Case Study

Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 3/F 1620 Tremont St, Boston, MA 02120, USA.
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (Impact Factor: 3.5). 07/2009; 16(5):645-50. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M3107
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

Technology has great potential to reduce medication errors in hospitals. This case report describes barriers to, and facilitators of, the implementation of a pharmacy bar code scanning system to reduce medication dispensing errors at a large academic medical center. Ten pharmacy staff were interviewed about their experiences during the implementation. Interview notes were iteratively reviewed to identify common themes. The authors identified three main barriers to pharmacy bar code scanning system implementation: process (training requirements and process flow issues), technology (hardware, software, and the role of vendors), and resistance (communication issues, changing roles, and negative perceptions about technology). The authors also identified strategies to overcome these barriers. Adequate training, continuous improvement, and adaptation of workflow to address one's own needs mitigated process barriers. Ongoing vendor involvement, acknowledgment of technology limitations, and attempts to address them were crucial in overcoming technology barriers. Staff resistance was addressed through clear communication, identifying champions, emphasizing new information provided by the system, and facilitating collaboration.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: William W Churchill, Jan 08, 2014
    • "In particular is the need to move from conceptual distinctions to studying these terms in practice. A better understanding of the relationship and differences between coordination, cooperation and collaborationAarts et al. 2006Abraham et al. 2009Ackerman & Locatis 2011Alexander et al. 2014Alsalamah et al. 2013Ash et al. 2001Ash et al. 2003Atwal et al. 2014Bång & Timpka 2007Bång et al. 2004Bång et al. 2003Berhe et al. 2010Bowles et al. 2010Bringay et al. 2006Broome & Adams 2005Bruun-Rasmussen et al. 2003Buono et al. 2006Cady & Finkelstein 2012Chang et al. 2013Dorr, Jones, Wilcox 2007Ekeland et al. 2010Falkman et al. 2008Farup et al. 2002Feufel et al. 2011Gagnon et al. 2008Ganiatsas et al. 2002Gong et al. 1997Hori et al. 2005Hsieh et al. 2013Jagannathan et al. 1995Jarvis-Selinger et al. 2008Jarvis-Selinger et al. 2011(continued on next page)Kane & Luz 2013Karasti et al. 1998Karlsudd 2008Kaspar et al. 2013Kim et al. 2007Klapan et al. 2002Kreps & Neuhauser 2010Kulik et al. 1997Kuziemsky & Varpio 2011Laitinen et al. 2014Lee et al. 2003Macyszyn et al. 2013Maglogiannis et al. 2006Martínez-García et al. 2013McKnight et al. 2001Mejia, Favela, Moran 2010Melby & Hellesø 2014Morrison et al. 2011Nanji et al. 2009Nielsen & Mengiste 2014Niimi & Ota 2013Obstfelder et al. 2007Ong et al. 2013Paganelli et al. 2008Parlak et al. 2012Patel et al. 2008Pinelle & Gutwin 2005Plasters et al. 2003Porter 2001Pratt et al. 2004Qureshi et al. 2010Reddy et al. 1993(continued on next page)Reddy et al. 2003Reeder et al. 2013Ruesch et al. 2012Safran 2003Safran et al. 2005Schraagen & Verhoeven 2013Simpson 2008Starmer & Giuse 2008Stein et al. 2009Stellefson 2013Sung et al. 2000Swinglehurst et al. 2011Tang et al. 2006Tiwari et al. 2011Unertl et al. 2007van der Eijk 2013Vawdrey et al 2011Viitanen et al. 2011Vimarlund et al. 1999Weir et al. 2011Welch et al. 2009Wentzer et al. 2007Westerling et al. 2010Wright et al. 2009Wu et al. 2014Wu et al. (Davis, Bell) 2012Zangara et al. 2014Zhu et al. 2011Key Explicitly mentioned term "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our objective was to identify and examine studies of collaboration in relation to the use of health information technologies (HIT) in the biomedical informatics field. We conducted a systematic literature review of articles through PubMed searches as well as reviewing a variety of individual journals and proceedings. Our search period was from 1990-2015. We identified 98 articles that met our inclusion criteria. We excluded articles that were not published in English, did not deal with technology, and did not focus primarily on individuals collaborating. We categorized the studies by technology type, user groups, study location, methodology, processes related to collaboration, and desired outcomes. We identified three major processes: workflow, communication, and information exchange and two outcomes: maintaining awareness and establishing common ground. Researchers most frequently studied collaboration within hospitals using qualitative methods. Based on our findings, we present the "collaboration space model", which is a model to help researchers study collaboration and technology in healthcare. We also discuss issues related to collaboration and future research directions. While collaboration is being increasingly recognized in the biomedical informatics community as essential to healthcare delivery, collaboration is often implicitly discussed or intertwined with other similar concepts. In order to evaluate how HIT affects collaboration and how we can build HIT to effectively support collaboration, we need more studies that explicitly focus on collaborative issues. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    No preview · Article · Aug 2015 · Journal of Biomedical Informatics
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Successful participation in the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) can expand access to clinical trials and promote cancer treatment innovations for patients and communities without access to major cancer centers. Yet CCOP participation involves administrative, financial, and organizational challenges that can affect hospital and provider participants. This study was designed to improve our understanding of challenges associated with CCOP participation from the perspectives of involved providers and to learn about opportunities to overcome these challenges. We conducted five case studies of hospitals and providers engaged with the CCOP. Across organizations, we interviewed 41 key administrative, physician, and nurse informants. We asked about CCOP participation, focusing on issues related to implementation, operations, and organizational support. Challenges associated with CCOP participation included lack of appreciation for the value of participation and poor understanding about CCOP operations, cost, and required workflow changes, among others. Informants also suggested opportunities to facilitate participation: (1) increase awareness of the CCOP, (2) enhance commitment to the CCOP, and (3) promote and support champions of the CCOP. Improving our understanding of the challenges and facilitators of CCOP participation may assist hospitals and providers in increasing and sustaining participation in the CCOP, thus helping to preserve access to innovative cancer treatment options for patients in need.
    No preview · Article · Feb 2013 · Journal of healthcare management / American College of Healthcare Executives
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent studies show that many attempts to implement health information systems (HIS) are less than completely successful and do not lead to improvements in the quality, safety or even cost of healthcare. There are a number of major issues that cause problems to occur in the design, implementation, evaluation process, as well as other factors. However, the major challenges to HIS success more often related to behavioral issues rather than technological issues. Therefore, it is important to focus on human and organizational issues in the lifecycle of HIS. In this paper we aim to review and summarize recent studies on human and organizational issues related to HIS. We believe that our findings will serve as a guide for researchers, evaluators, IT specialists and stakeholders working in the healthcare environment.
    No preview · Conference Paper · Jan 2011
Show more