Information Systems Project Success, Term Paper Example

Introduction

Description of strengths and weaknesses of Mayo clinic approach.

What they did right and could they have done better?

The first strength of their program is indicated by an integrated approach whereby teams were drawn from the business community, healthcare providers and information technology experts. From the case study the design and implementation process was initiated by this team in successfullyestablishing Mayo Scottsdale’s electronic health record paperless system. Their vision encompassed transforming Mayo Clinic Scottsdale demographic, laboratory and financial data from its paper legacy into modern outpatient clinical information system. Ultimately, the database was expected to blend old and new data into a manageable architecture (Mack, 2000).

The Mayo Scottsdale clinic catered to serving inpatients in an acute care setting, primary care services inclusive of providers and clinics, clinical research expansionand specialized practices. Importantly, in projecting this vision success was facilitated since the team knew their goals and worked towards achieving them. Precisely, the implementation process despite challenges was completed successfully in 20 months. Achievements included a collateral integration to the Rochester systems which realized 35 new systems being installed; 70 interfaces, 2 new LANs with approximately 300,000 converted patient records converted. This is phenomenal (Mack, 2000).

In my opiniondespite thesesuccesses considering the magnitude of this implementation, perhaps it could have been phased out a little beyond 20 months. Besides, these experts were phased off of the project after twenty months implementation. Usually, after the implementation process is over the need for experts become more pronounced because at this time many irregularities surface. Therefore, had the program been executed in phases some challenges encountered later would have been detected earlier and the expert team could have been more effective in addressing them in phases (Mack, 2000).

Taconic IPA/MedAllies Regional Health

Information Exchange project:

Description in terms of success or failure

Taconic IPAis considered an independent practice association. It consists of 2, 500 doctors in the greater Hudson Valley and is affiliated to MVP Healthcare. The change towards electronic health records system emerged from the organization’s desire to centralize patients’ data for easy access within the network.Importantly, Taconic envisioned a community-wide system, which was capable of producing real time features, taking all their hospital patients’’ data inclusive of laboratory tests and integrating them into one system (Kim,2005).

As such, the project began in 2002 with MedAllies organizing training and support for the network of participating physicians. A system from Health vision was selected from web viewing to access in and outpatients’ laboratory and radiology reports. Subsequently, patients’’ data from hospitals were consolidated into a repository established by MedAllies. Further, the portal was integrated into hospital medical record system which allowed access to electronic reviews and signature transcriptions. Ultimately, four community hospitals were integrated along with two national laboratory companies encompassing 160 practices; 500 doctors and 1,200 staff users. This brought an end to the first phase implementation process (Kim, 2005).

Two years later, in 2004 the second phase begun. This embraced expanding the systemto include two vendors approved by MedAllies commissioned with the responsibility of interoperating with the central clinical data repository. Also, ePrescribing was integrated with pharmacies’ benefit management systems. Clinical data repository containing commercial labs hospitals and electronic medical records system was designedalong with a single sign on capability was implemented (Kim, 2005).

Challenges and lessons includebudgeting, which was above the estimated costs and providers had to make adjustment for accommodating increases. Agreement with competing electronic record systems had to be achieved. Some difficulty existed working with competing vendors from the same portal. However, IPA offered physicians a choice of collaborating only with Med Allies approved vendors. Competing hospitals had to be convinced of data safety when utilizing the same portal. Financial incentives proved beneficial towards physicians adapting the technology. Subsequently, physicians were allowed free portal access, but purchased their own electronic health record system (Kim, 2005).

Compare and contrast Taconic IPA/MedAllies Regional Health

Information Exchange approach and processes with

That of the Mayo case

Mayo case study began with an integrated panel of experts’ consultation before selection of vendors and programs. Also, there was a vision statement guiding the project.Taconic IPA/MedAllies Regional HealthInformation Exchange did not have a panel of experts instead the physicians recruited Health vision through the advice of Med Allies. Both entities had a vision for the implementation, but Mayo’s project it was more defined and extensively written. Besides Mayo case study embraced a larger program lasting only 20 months.Taconic IPA/MedAllies Regional Health Information Exchange undertaking was far less complex and smaller, but it was phased out distinctly over a period of 2-3 years (Kim, 2005).

Conclusion

Describe what processes and key elements you

Believe are the most critical for overall project success and explain why

Importantly, the most critical processesfor overall project success embody, a solid plan involving experts who have experience in implementing projects compatible with the organizations’ vision and goals. This was exemplified in the Mayo case study. Screening for the most appropriate vendors is critical to successes. Many vendors use databases made by other vendors, which may not be compatible with the ones they use. When they are combining software and hardware products the experts must intervene making sure they are aligned to existing systems(Cohn, 2007).

Dr. Kenneth Cohn (2007) further advocates physician engagement as being crucial to success. He contends that in selecting the panel of experts organizations ought to identify the‘top 20% of physicians, who regardless of their irascibility, account for 80% of admissions or 80% of revenue and approach them well before the go-live date to help them customize the way that they view inpatient data’ ( Cohn, 2007, p.1). Next allow physician users to access the ‘moan zone’ and offer feedback. Thirdly, during the early implementation phase show physicians that their input is relevant and valid (Cohn, 2007).

References

Cohn, K. (2007).Keys to Successful Electronic Healthcare Record Implementation. Retrieved on December, 12^th, 2012 from http://healthcarecollaboration.com/keys-to-successful-electronic-healthcare-record-implementation/

Kim, K. (2005). Clinical Data Standards in Health Care: Five Case Studies.California Health Care Foundation.

Mack, T. (2000). Designing and Implementing an Information Management System for a New Hospital. Information Services Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Arizona