Why a System Awarded as “MIE ’99 Best Paper” Failed to Be Used and Hence to Affect Patient’s Health?

Summary

Objective: The failure of a promising system is described with the aim of identifying the errors and the unfavourable conditions that led to such a result.

Methods: The system, based on the AHCPR guideline for pressure ulcers prevention and integrated into the already existing clinical information system, is aimed at supporting nurse’s activities for: the risk assessment of the inpatient at the beginning of the hospitalization; the prevention plan, customized to each specific patient; the work plan for each day for all the patients; the report of the non-compliances to the GL and of the workload of the nurses.

Results: The system was abandoned after a short period. The reported reasons for the abandonment were: too strict constraints in the work-plan and the mandatory updating of the tasks at the end of each shift (both executed and not); the double writing activity, on paper first and afterward on the workstation.

The first complaint was almost unrecoverable and not related to the system from the implementation point of view. Portable notebooks and wireless connections to the LAN could have been a solution for the second problem. Simultaneously a portable device at the bed side could have benefited many other features of the clinical information system. We proposed to quantify the added value, if any, due to making the information system available as close as possible to the points on the wards where information are both generated and used. The proposal was rejected.

Conclusions: In our experience in a hospital setting, closing the gap among the medical informatics minority, the health professionals and the hospital management, through their collaborative responsibilities and participation in the decision-making process, can make the difference between the success and the failure of a good computer-based solution.

Keywords

Applied medical informatics - success factors - guidelines - evaluation - political factors

• References

• 1 Zingarelli N. Lo Zingarelli 1998, Vocabolario della lingua italiana. Bologna:: Zanichelli; 1998
• 2 Brender J. Medical informatics: does the healthcare domain have special features?. Methods Inf Med 1997; 36 (01) 59-60.
• 3 Quaglini S, Grandi E, Baiardi P, Mazzoleni MC. A Computerized Guideline for Pressure Ulcer Prevention. Int J Med Inf 2000; 58-59 207-17.
• 4 Eccles M, McColl E, Steen N, Rousseau N, Grimshaw J, Parkin D, Purves I. Effect of computerised evidence based guidelines on management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2002; 325 7370 941
• 5 Quaglini S, Ciccarese P, Micieli G, Cavallini A. Guideline Application for Decision Making in Ischemic Stroke (GLADIS) Study Group. Noncompliance with guidelines: motivations and consequences in a case study. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 101: 75-87.
• 6 Willson D. et al. Computerized support of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment protocols. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1995; 646-50.
• 7 Waitman LR, Miller RA. Pragmatics of implementing guidelines on the front lines. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11 (05) 436-8.
• 8 Shiffman RN, Liaw Y, Brandt CA, Corb GJ. Computer- based guideline implementation systems: a systematic review of functionality and effectiveness. JAMIA 1999; 6 (02) 104-14.
• 9 Fischer S, Stewart TE, Mehta S, Wax R, Lapinsky SE. Handheld computing in medicine. JAMIA 2003; 10 (02) 139-49.
• 10 Mueller M, Frankewitsch T, Ganslandt T, Burkle T, Prokosch H. The Clinical Document Architecture (CDA) Enables Electronic Medical Records to Wireless Mobile Computing. In: Fieschi M, Coiera E, Yu-Chuan JL. Medinfo 2004. Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress on Medical Informatics. Amsterdam:: IOS; 2004: 1448-52.
• 11 Currie LM, Graham M, Allen M, Bakken S, Patel V, Cimino JJ. Clinical information needs in context: an observational study of clinicians while using a clinical information system. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2003; 190-4.
• 12 Rigby M. Evaluation: 16 powerful reasons why not to do it and 6 over-riding imperatives. In: Patel V, Rogers R, Haux R. Medinfo 2001. Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress on Medical Informatics. Amsterdam:: IOS; 2001: 1198-2.
• 13 Moehr JR. Evaluation: salvation or nemesis of medical informatics?. Comput Biol Med 2002; 32 (03) 113-25.
• 14 Lorenzi NM, Smith JB, Conner SR, Campion TR. The Success Factor Profile(c) for Clinical Computer Innovation. In: Fieschi M, Coiera E, Yu-Chuan JL. Medinfo 2004. Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress on Medical Informatics. Amsterdam:: IOS; 2004: 1077-80.
• 15 Van Der Meijinden MJ, Tange HJ, Troost J, Hasman A. Determinants of Success of Inpatient Clinical Information System. JAMIA 2003; 10: 235-43.