| This is the first article in a series dedicated to | | | | Background |
| uncovering the best practices for an EMR | | | | Information Technology (IT) projects generally fail |
| implementation. The information presented has | | | | at an alarming rate (The Standish Group, 1995) |
| been developed by the author as part of a | | | | and it seems there is a new one in the headlines |
| research project. | | | | everyday (Robins, 2007). Significant sums of |
| Introduction | | | | money are spent on IT projects each year (The |
| The growing demand by patients, government | | | | Standish Group, 1995) as companies try to |
| entities and private sector companies over the | | | | leverage technology to streamline operations and |
| last several years is driving demand for Electronic | | | | squeeze efficiencies out of their processes and |
| Medical Record (EMR) systems. These systems | | | | people. Despite these large spends in capital, IT |
| can represent a small provider implementation to | | | | projects continue to fail. Understanding the |
| large scale, regional adoptions. The complexity of | | | | commonality of why IT projects fail will help |
| information technology in general, combined with | | | | those implementing them avoid costly mistakes. |
| the additional intricacies of a patient's interaction | | | | As the desire for automation in healthcare |
| with the healthcare system, provides for | | | | continues to grow, healthcare IT managers must |
| significant challenges in effective integration and | | | | consider the unique factors in their environment |
| adoption of EMR systems. This study hopes to | | | | that ensure the best opportunity for success. |
| identify those best practices that future | | | | Government Intervention |
| implementers of EMR systems can leverage to | | | | As government continues to push providers to |
| increase their success and ultimately deliver on | | | | electronic claims processing and the provision of |
| the promises of EMR while reducing the inherent | | | | medical information (CIGNA, 2007), the need for |
| risks associated with complex integrations. | | | | patient systems only continues to grow. |
| Context of the Problem | | | | Continued pressures on providers to reduce costs |
| These articles address the unique problems arising | | | | and become more efficient only amplify the need |
| from the implementation of technology in a clinical | | | | to acquire more effective automation (Hoffman, |
| setting. Specifically, this series of articles address | | | | 2007). However, these pressures put providers in |
| the factors that must be considered when | | | | a precarious situation where IT projects are |
| implementing an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) | | | | concerned and the room for error on |
| system. A primary focus will be observations and | | | | implementations of technology is limited. Providing |
| analysis considering those actors that have | | | | relevant information on the best practices |
| implemented an EMR system and their direct | | | | involved in delivering quality, usable EMR systems |
| experiences with the final outcomes and | | | | is a necessity and thereby helps the consumer of |
| perceptions. This information is significant as it will | | | | this information in preparation and reduction of |
| provide important best practices encountered by | | | | risk in implementing an EMR system. |
| successful implementers of EMR systems that | | | | The next article will begin to identify areas where |
| can be directly utilized in future implementation | | | | implementers will be faced with problems and the |
| with the expectation of a greater chance of | | | | methodology for collecting and validating best |
| success. | | | | practices. |