Electronic Medical Record in Pediatric Intensive Care: Implementation Process Assessment

Abstract

The implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR) is a high-priority project in a majority of industrialized countries. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Analytics established an eight-stage EMR Adoption Model (EMRAM) to track progress against health care organizations across a country. In Canada, 36.5% of the hospitals are at the stage 3 or higher, whereas 0.2% have reached the seventh stage. To assess the impact on the safety and caregivers' satisfaction of a stage 7 EMR in a Quebec Pediatric Hospital initially at the EMRAM stage 3, a pilot customized implementation of paperless pediatric intensive care EMR was performed and evaluated. Six months after implementation, there was a nonsignificant decrease in severe medical incidents in comparison to the same period of time, the previous year. Most pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) staff were very or completely comfortable with the EMR, but the EMR satisfied 33.9% of all staff (everyday users [internal staff] and occasional user [external staff]) and 41.9% of internal staff only. The information gathered with this pilot EMR implementation using a 20-month preparation period and a continuous monitoring including change management (“living lab approach”) after the “go live” helped in the success of the implementation but did not improve significantly caregivers' satisfaction, in the first 6 months of this dramatic change in practice.

Keywords

children - electronic medical record - intensive care

Note

This study was financially supported by Sainte-Justine Hospital Foundation and the Research Center of Sainte-Justine Hospital. Philippe Jouvet received fundings from Fonds de recherche en Santé du Québec, Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux du Québec and Sainte-Justine Hospital.

• References

• 1 Analytics H. HIMSS Analytics® Database. 33 West Monroe Street, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60603–56162012. http://www.himssanalytics.org/home/index.aspx . Accessed November 15, 2015
• 2 4MedApproved. PACS Solutions and Labs. 8770 West Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite 1435, Chicago, IL 606312013 [updated April 2, 2015]. http://www.4medapproved.com/pacs-labs.php . Accessed November 15, 2015
• 3 Kirkley D, Rewick D. Evaluating clinical information systems. J Nurs Adm 2003; 33 (12) 643-651
• 4 Cherry BJ, Ford EW, Peterson LT. Experiences with electronic health records: early adopters in long-term care facilities. Health Care Manage Rev 2011; 36 (3) 265-274
• 5 Edsall RL, Adler KG. The 2011 EHR User Satisfaction Survey: responses from 2,719 family physicians. Fam Pract Manag 2011; 18 (4) 23-30
• 6 Popernack ML. A critical change in a day in the life of intensive care nurses: rising to the e-challenge of an integrated clinical information system. Crit Care Nurs Q 2006; 29 (4) 362-375
• 7 Larrabee JH, Boldreghini S, Elder-Sorrells K , et al. Evaluation of documentation before and after implementation of a nursing information system in an acute care hospital. Comput Nurs 2001; 19 (2) 56-65 , quiz 66–68
• 8 Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST , et al. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 2005; 116 (6) 1506-1512
• 9 Lee TT. Nurses' experiences using a nursing information system: early stage of technology implementation. Comput Inform Nurs 2007; 25 (5) 294-300
• 10 Vaughan PJ. System Implementation Success Factors: It's Not just the Technology. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/cmr0122.pdf . Accessed November 15, 2015
• 11 Kirkley D. Not whether, but when: gaining buy-in for computerized clinical processes. J Nurs Adm 2004; 34 (2) 55-58
• 12 Wilson CB. Adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ 2006; 332 (7533) 112-114
• 13 Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS , et al; Balliol Collaboration. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 2009; 374 (9695) 1089-1096
• 14 Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N , et al; ADE Prevention Study Group. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. JAMA 1995; 274 (1) 29-34
• 15 Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ , et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA 1998; 280 (15) 1311-1316
• 16 Leape LL, Bates DW, Cullen DJ , et al; ADE Prevention Study Group. Systems analysis of adverse drug events. JAMA 1995; 274 (1) 35-43
• 17 Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Clapp MD , et al. Pharmacist participation on physician rounds and adverse drug events in the intensive care unit. JAMA 1999; 282 (3) 267-270
• 18 The Association of Support Professionals. Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking. 122 Garnard Avenue, Watertown, MA, 2007. http://www.ianbrooks.com/useful-ideas/articles_whitepapers/200905CustomerSatisfactionBenchmarking.pdf . Accessed November 15, 2015
• 19 Buckley MS, Erstad BL, Kopp BJ, Theodorou AA, Priestley G. Direct observation approach for detecting medication errors and adverse drug events in a pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2007; 8 (2) 145-152