The implementation of the health information system will be performed for the hospital staff training, and its configuration will be performed by hospital needs. The following table presents the timeline for system training and implementation.
Initial training will integrate training of the basic system while emphasizing the communication pathway to the system (Elmetwaly, 2011). Once the trainees have begun to use the system in a live environment, they will not be fully efficient. Allow slight additional staff to be scheduled to allow the trainees to gradually integrate the system into routine practices. The project team (super-users) can assist, with their presence and availability being reduced over two weeks.
Staff satisfaction and a balanced workload are very important. HIS must be seen to fit seamlessly into a new practice paradigm. The satisfaction of staff in all disciplines should be monitored over time, with the recognition that issues of user concern may shift as familiarity with the system grows. Such concerns may represent system weakness. Even if no system weakness is identified, the concerns may lead to dissatisfaction and possible non-compliance. Ensuring user satisfaction and addressing any issues raised are not short-term strategies but must continue over time, to show that the facility value and fosters communication, collaboration, and interdisciplinary cohesiveness.
Technical systems with software-based functionality will have a background database for collecting information about various events. These data will assist system managers in monitoring conformance with system practices. Audits are complementary to, not a replacement for, team commutations. Internal system data elements can be used to monitor overall activity in the medication use system, such as several “catches” (errors developed in the system) during dose or patient verification. A rough calculation of activity rate can be generated and monitored using a denominator such as total doses administered or a total number of patient days. It should be assumed that each “catch” necessarily represents an error prevented. The number of triggered warnings may also be monitored, as can the number of times alerts are overridden. Any such information must be discussed with the group, as there may be good reasons for non-compliance, in which case alert settings may need adjustment. Non-compliance may also indicate an over-reliance on alerts by the system planners.
Concerns voiced during team rounds and surveys must be acknowledged and addressed in some fashion (Wyatt & Wyatt, 2003). Any new system, including the verification technologies, should decrease error rates, but new forms of errors may arise because of the system’s inherent weaknesses in a practical environment. Incident reporting should be encouraged, including errors or near misses caused by the system. After the implementation of the health care system, additional communication and training is required. Large changes may require a return to the structured training.
References
Elmetwaly, H. M. (2011). Design and implementation of medical information systems for managing and following up work flaw in hospitals and clinics. Journal of Computer Science, 7(1), 27-31.
Wyatt, J.C. & Wyatt, S. M. (2003). When and how to evaluate health information systems? International Journal of Medical Informatics, 69(2), 251- 259.