Phased implementation of electronic health records through an office of clinical transformation
- 1Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA
- 2Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA
- Correspondence to Dr Sheldon M Retchin, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, PO Box 980549, Richmond, VA 23298, USA;
- Received 29 April 2010
- Accepted 30 April 2011
- Published Online First 9 June 2011
Evidence suggests that when carefully implemented, health information technologies (HIT) have a positive impact on behavior, as well as operational, process, and clinical outcomes. Recent economic stimulus initiatives have prompted unprecedented federal investment in HIT. Despite strong interest from the healthcare delivery community to achieve ‘meaningful use’ of HIT within a relatively short time frame, few best-practice implementation methodologies have been described. Herein we outline HIT implementation strategies at an academic health center with an office of clinical transformation. Seven percent of the medical center's information technology budget was dedicated to the Office of Clinical Transformation, and successful conversion of 1491 physicians to electronic-based documentation was accomplished. This paper outlines the process re-design, end-user adoption, and practice transformation strategies that resulted in a 99.7% adoption rate within 6 months of the introduction of digital documentation.
- Computerized patient records
- computer literacy
- medical informatics
- computerized physician order entry systems
This topic was presented at the Cerner Healthcare Conference to other Cerner clients.
Funding This project was supported, in part, by award number UL1RR031990 from the National Center for Research Resources and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, National Institutes of Health. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.