Advancing the integration of hospital IT

Summary

Background: Planning and controlling surgical operations hugely impacts upon productivity, patient safety, and surgeons’ careers. Established, specialized software for this task is being increasingly replaced by “Operating Room (OR)-modules” appended to enterprise-wide resource planning (ERP) systems. As a result, usability problems are re-emerging and require developers’ attention.

Objective: Systematic evaluation of the functionality and social repercussions of a global, market-leading IT business control system (SAP R3, Germany), adapted for real-time OR process steering.

Methods: Field study involving document analyses, interviews, and a 73-item survey addressed to 77 qualified (> 1-year system experience) senior planning executives (end users; “planners”) working in surgical departments of university hospitals.

Results: Planners reported that 57% of electronic operation requests contained contradictory information. Key screens contained clinically irrelevant areas (36 +/− 29%). Compared to the legacy system, users reported either no improvements or worse performance, in regard to co-ordination of OR stakeholders, intra-day program changes, and safety. Planners concluded that the ERP-planning module was “non-intuitive” (66%), increased planning work (56%, p=0.002), and did not impact upon either organizational mishap spectrum or frequency. Interviews evidenced intra-institutional power shifts due to increased system complexity. Planners resented e.g. a trend towards increased personal culpability for mishap.

Conclusions: Highly complex enterprise system extensions may not be directly suited to specific process steering tasks in a high risk/low error-environment like the OR.

In view of surgeons’ high primary task load, the repeated call for simpler IT is an imperative for ERP extensions. System design should consider a) that current OR IT suffers from an input limitation regarding planning-relevant real-time data, and b) that there are social processes that strongly affect planning and particularly ERP use beyond algorithms.

Real improvement of clinical IT tools requires their independent evaluation according to standards developed for pharmaceutical subjects.

Citation: Engelmann C, Ametowobla D. Advancing the integration of hospital IT: pitfalls and perspectives when replacing specialized software for high-risk environments with enterprise system extensions. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8: 515–528 https://doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2016-06-RA-0100

Keywords

Process steering software - surgery - operation room list - enterprise systems - user interface

Protection of Human Subjects

Patients or animals were not involved. The institutions’ workers’ committee and legal affairs department granted permission valid for all sites (Nr. 9510, 18.7.2013).

List of Supporting Digital Content (SDC)

SDC 1–4.docx; SDC 5 Questionnaire.docx; SDC 6 spread sheet.xlsx, SDC 7 code plan.xlsx

• References

• 1 Dexter F, 1 Willemsen-Dunlap A, Lee JD. Operating room managerial decision-making on the day of surgery with and without computer recommendations and status displays. Anesth Analg 2007; 105: 419-429.
• 2 Puschner P, Koza C. Calculating the maximum execution time of real-time programs. Real-Time Systems 1989; 1: 159-176.
• 3 Ogulata SN, Erol R. A hierarchical multiple criteria mathematical programming approach for scheduling general surgery operations in large hospitals. J Med Syst 2003; 27: 259-270.
• 4 Samudra M, Demeulemeester E, Cardoen B, Vansteenkiste N, Rademakers FE. Due time driven surgery scheduling. Health Care Manag Sci 2016 Feb 9.
• 5 Sakowska MM, Thomas MV, Connor S, Roberts R. Hospital-wide implementation of an electronic-work-flow solution aiming to make surgical practice improvement easy. ANZ J Surg. 2016 Oct 21. doi: 10.1111/ans.13805.
• 6 Babbie E. The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning,; 2012
• 7 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007; 370: 1453-1457.
• 8 Vogt DS, King DW, King L. ,,Focus groups in psychological assessment: enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population.“. Psychological assessment. 2004; 16: 231.
• 9 Weintrit, Adam. The electronic chart display and information system (ECDIS): an operational handbook. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2009
• 10 Pleskacz K, Janusz U. ,,Understanding of navigational information systems.“. Annual of Navigation 2012; 19 (01) 121-132.
• 11 Bansak N, Negi T. A metric for ERP complexity. In: Business information systems. Heidelberg: Springer; 2008. p. 369-379.
• 12 Eggemeier FT, Wilson GF, Kramer AF. Workload assessment in multi-task environments. Multiple-task performance. 1991: 207-216.
• 13 Ehrenfeld JM, Dexter F, Rothman BS, Johnson AM, Epstein RH. Case cancellation rates measured by surgical service differ whether based on the number of cases or the number of minutes cancelled. Anesth Analg 2013; 117: 711-716.
• 14 Epstein RH, Dexter F. Management implications for the Perioperative Surgical Home related to inpatient case cancellations and add-on case scheduling on the day of surgery. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2015; 121: 206-218.
• 15 Engelmann C, Grote G, Geyer S, Ametowobla D. Operating lists are created by rational algorithms and use of power. What can a social scientific view offer surgeons? Essay. Langenbecks Arch Surg; 2016. Oct 14. PMID: 27743031
• 16 Roberts KH. ,,Some characteristics of one type of high reliability organization.“. Organization Science 1990; 1.2: 160-176.
• 17 Johnston JS, Swenson ED. ,,Feasibility Study of Global-Positioning-System-Based Aircraft-Carrier Flight-Deck Persistent Monitoring System.“. Journal of Aircraft 2010; 47.5: 1624-1635.
• 18 Henry T. CDR USS Eisenhower CVN-69. E-mail, March 02, 2015
• 19 Szabla DB. ,,A multidimensional view of resistance to organizational change: Exploring cognitive, emotional, and intentional responses to planned change across perceived change leadership strategies.“. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2007: 525-558.
• 20 Wagner EL, Piccoli G. ,,Moving beyond user participation to achieve successful IS design.“. Communications of the ACM 2007; 50 (12) 51-55.
• 21 Jones EE, Davis KE. From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In: L. Berkowitz L. editor. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press; 219-266 1965
• 22 Wears RL. Health information technology and victory. Ann Emerg Med 2015; 65: 143-145.
• 23 Crozier M, Friedberg E. Actors and systems: The politics of collective action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1980
• 24 Sellen A, Rogers Y, Harper R, Rodden T. Reflecting human values in the digital age. Communications of the ACM 2009; 52 (03) 58-66.
• 25 Institute for business value. Thinking out of the toolbox: How digital technologies are powering the operations revolution. http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/my-oxford/projects/322883 accessed 10–2-2017.
• 26 Lynne MM. Power, politics and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM. ACM New York, NA 1983; 26: 430-444.
• 27 Kayas OG, McLean R, Hines T, Wright GH. The panoptic gaze: Analysing the interaction between enterprise resource planning technology and organisational culture. InternationalJ ournal of Information Management 2008; 28 (06) 446-452.
• 28 Kittlaus HB, Clough PN. Software product management and pricing: Key success factors for software organizations. Luxemburg: Springer Science & Business Media,; 2008
• 29 Ortmann G, Windeler A, Becker A, Schulz H J. [Computers and Power in Organizations: Micropolitical Analyses]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. German.; 1990
• 30 Harrison MI, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care –an interactive sociotechnical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14: 542-549.
• 31 Zakour AB. Cultural differences and information technology acceptance. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual conference of the Southern association for information systems. 2004 p. 156-161.
• 32 Dietrich R, Childress TM. Group interaction in high risk environments. Farnham/Surrey: Gower Publishing; 2004
• 33 Kotter JP. Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Buisiness Review; 1995: 95204.
• 34 Reynolds CR, Ramsay MC. Bias in psychological assessment: An empirical review and recommendations. Chapter 4. In: Handbook of Psychology. Hoboken: Wiley; 2003. p. 82-108.
• 35 Dindo D, Hahnloser D, Clavien PA. Quality assessment in surgery: riding a lame horse. Ann Surg 2010; 251: 766-771.
• 36 Kmieciak R, Michna A, Meczynska A. ,,Innovativeness, empowerment and IT capability: evidence from SMEs.“. Industrial Management & Data Systems 2012; 112 (05) 707-728.
• 37 Langley A, Denis JL. ,,Beyond evidence: the micropolitics of improvement.“. BMJ Qual Saf 2011; 20: i43-i46.
• 38 Koppel R, Lehmann CU. Implications of an emerging EHR monoculture for hospitals and healthcare systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22: 465-471.
• 39 EHR Incentive Programs. Data and Program reports. 2016 [cited 2016, April 6]; Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/DataAndReports.html
• 40 Koppel R. Demanding Utility From Health Information Technology. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158: 845-846.
• 41 Korn O, Funk M, Schmidt A. Assistive Systems for the Workplace: Towards Context-Aware Assistance. Assistive Technologies for Physical and Cognitive Disabilities 2015; 121-133.
• 42 Devasia S, Iamratanakul D, Chatterji G, Meyer G. Decoupled conflict-resolution procedures for decentralized air traffic control. Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions 2011; 12 (02) 422-437.
• 43 Power M. ,,Research evaluation in the audit society.“ Wissenschaft unter Beobachtung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/Germany, 2008 p. 15-24.
• 44 Davenport TH. Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press; 2013