Download

104 Section III. Implementationthe room without drawing much attention to himself. Some of the clinical departmentheads and information technology staff were attending this special meeting, and Dr.Hammill was surprised to see such a turnout.The clinician committee met monthly with the CIO for status updates and to discussinformation associated with the IIS project. A special invitation was extended todepartment chairs along with a number of clinicians who were concerned with theprogress of the IIS project. The CIO hoped to address physician concerns related tothe new system. The intent was to provide a structured forum to discuss the IIS implementation.Many clinical departments had experienced past failures with informationsystems and approached the IIS project tentatively.As Dr. Hammill entered, a lively discussion was already taking place. Dr. MarkWeber, department of medicine chair, was confronting Richard Solomon, the hospital’sCIO. “How is my department supposed to function without a viable integrated systemin place? You keep saying IIS is going to help transport this hospital and my departmentto a higher level of cost-effective quality care, but that I will have to wait sevenyears, if not more, for full integration. I just can’t wait that long, Richard; I have patientsand needs that must be met now, not seven years from now.”Dr. Susan Perkins, chief of cardiology, chimed in, “ Mark, you always have the optionto buy your own system. We did; and the system was designed to meet all of ourspecific clinical needs.”Dr. Weber replied, “Internal Medicine does not have the same financial resources asCardiology. We are a poor department, and a significant portion of our patients areindigent.Where are we going to get the money to buy an information system? Richard,I need a system now.”“Believe me Mark, I understand your concerns.We are all concerned about the timelinefor this project. It is an expansive undertaking from the IT perspective. There areso many systems in this institution that must be integrated. Compromises have to bemade to accomplish any IT project on time and within budget. If you can bear with usthrough the early phases, we can develop the infrastructure needed to make this projecta success,” replied Solomon.Before Dr. Weber had a chance to respond, Samantha Hornsby, project manager forthe patient access committee responded, “I understand the skepticism and frustrationpresent in this room. There appears to be significant doubt about whether the projectwill actually succeed. I realize many of you have doubts about this project. That’s whyeveryone wants their own system now, rather than waiting to see if it’s (IIS) going tohappen. Because we are only in phase I, it’s really too early to predict what’s going tooccur—and it’s too early to tell how this will impact the individual departments.”“This is all well and good,” noted Weber, “but this project, which is intended for clinicaland administrative use, has had a lack of involvement from clinicians in definingsystem requirements from the beginning. It’s as if this system was forced upon us fromthe start without any consideration given to the needs of our departments or our practicepatterns. How can you sit there and say our patients and staff will ‘just have towait’ until IIS is fully operational ...this is absurd.”With tensions and voices rising, Richard Solomon replied, “Dr. Weber, clinicianschose this system! A number of physicians logged thousands of frequent flier milestraveling across the country reviewing systems. The vice president, Dr. Thorp, emphasizedclinical needs as a priority in selecting a system and I believe that’s what we havedone. There are so many disparate systems in this hospital that it is a wonder ourdepartments are able to relay any information to one another. IIS will establish a hospitalwidesystem that will facilitate departmental communication, improve information