Memorial Health System CPOE Implementation: Case Study

Memorial Health System CPOE Implementation
Joyce A. Holt
HCS/481
July 02, 2012
Steven Fowler
Memorial Health System CPOE Implementation
In going through the case study of the Memorial Health System CPOE Implementation it is apparent that the direction of the implementation was developing trouble from the onset of the proposal and the evaluation (Wager, Glaser, 2009).
The first problem that is apparent is the lack of belief in the project. When the board approved the CPOE initiative and appointed the champions of the project the CEO Fred Dryer and CIO Joe Roberts there was already opposition from some of the stakeholders about this project. The physician believed the CPOE system would create more workload for them as well
as this system reducing the physician to secretaries. To minimize the effect of this indicator a physician would have been appointed as a champion of this project to serve as an advocate of the system (Wager, Glaser, 2009). To gain buy-in from other physicians and user of the new system to ensure they have adequate input into the decision- making process (Wager, Glaser, 2009). The lack of clarity of purpose is apparent in this implementation.
The project does not determine the scope and expectations clearly the board approved a multimillion dollar initiative to install an enterprise-wide clinician provider order entry system to reduce medical errors. To minimize this indicator the implementation team must determine the scope of the project and what the organization hopes the project will achieve (Wager, Glaser, 2009). A senior health care executive should meet with the implementation team to set the tone and communicate how the project relates to the organization’s strategic goals (Wager, Glaser, 2009). The team will determine the scope, establish expectations, and institute a project plan to minimize this indicator (Wager, Glaser, 2009). Insufficient leadership support is another indicator that played a part in the failure of this implementation. When leadership wants to hear positive communication about a project and not the negatives the project will fail. To minimize this indicator clear and concise communication on the progress of the project is necessary the leader involve in the project should make time for reports on the progress of the implementation to handle any issues that may occur that could hinder the progress of
the project (Wager, Glaser, 2009).
Appointing people who believe and committed to the project into leadership position to lead the team and make time for communication from team and other leadership (Wager, Glaser, 2009). Another issue that was an indicator of failure to this project was the requirements analysis was rushed several key workflow and system integration issues were missed. To minimize this indicator a thorough requirement analysis is done to ensure that all workflow analysis to support the change in workflow and the system requirements analysis to ensure the requirements needed for the system to work are aligned with the strategic goals of the organization (Wager, Glaser, 2009). Budget cut to the project was a big indicator the would lead to failure of this project because in the status review meeting it was presented that the project was on scope, on schedule, and on budget led to leadership taking resources from the CPOE project. It is important the present a true picture
of how the project is going not just what someone wants to hear (Wager, Glaser, 2009). Present a clear picture of how the budget is spent and what the project will continue to spend as the implementation goes to completion, such as training, or a newer version of the software (Wager, Glaser, 2009). Showing an account of the budget can help to minimize this indicator (Wager, Glaser, 2009).
This project was doom from the beginning there was not a clear scope or the expectation of the project. Analysis were not done there was not a detail project plan plus and unrealistic time line for the project to be implemented. Leadership did not communicate enough to persuade the stakeholders who were against the project to change their thoughts and so on. However, for the project to work the objectives of the initiatives are clear and communicating these objectives and initiative, and test the degree to which the organizational members have brought into them. Dividing the project into manageable pieces address the complexity and test the evidence that the project may be at risk from trying to do too much all at once.
Reference
Wager, K. A., Lee, F. W., & Glaser, J. P. (2009). Health Care Information System: A practical approach for health care management (2nd ed.). San Frncisco, CA: Jossey-Bas.