There are many factors to be considered when developing a plan for implementation for
example:
1. What computer systems does the institution currently have?
2. What form will the implementation take? Will it be phased in? How?
3. How will past data be integrated and old data retained?
1.) What computer systems does the institution currently have?
Determine iftheproposedsystemwouldbe compatiblewith electronic data systems (if any) already
in use by the institution/country. They may include:
• Electronic Patients' Master Index (PMI) –As outlined previously, an electronic patients’ master
index system is essential and, if not already in place, should be the first step undertaken when
changing to an electronic health record system.
• An Automated Patient Administration System (PAS) – This would also be critical for the
effective operation of the proposed system. An admission, discharge, and transfer system enables
staff to maintain a file on all patients awaiting admission, currently in hospital, transferred within
the hospital, recently discharged or diseased. It enables authorized users to have direct access to
the patient’s information. It also automatically generates the bed census and other daily statistics
required by the administration.
• Clinical Systems – In many institutions/countries, systems are already in place that are capable
of reporting results – laboratory, pathology, radiology, treatment orders and medications,
surgical reports, discharge summaries, etc. Some specialized units offer forms of clinical
documentation may have already been implemented.
• Automated clinical coding and disease and procedure indexing – in many institutions/countries
computer-assisted coding of diseases and procedures is conducted on-line. If this is not the case
in your institution/country this is another important area to be developed and implemented. With
such a systemthe use of a standard medical vocabulary is essential. With the use of automated
clinical coding, data quality will be monitored automatically.
2.) What form should the implementation take?
The Steering Committee needs to determine whether they want to move into full implementation,
have phased implementation, or start with implementation at a pilot site. The readiness of the
site, readiness of all users to accept change, and the availability of funds for implementation are a
few of the issues that may influence the
Committee in its decision on the form implementation should take.
• Full Implementation - In an environment with a strong technical infrastructure, the tendency
may be for full implementation. Thiswould require detailed preparation with all technical
requirementsin place and working telecommunication infrastructure fullyoperational, the system
tested thoroughly, and all staff ready and fully trained. Ifthis is
thedesiredimplementation,dataforall active patients must be uploaded immediately before the
cut-off – that is, identification and demographic details of all patients currently in hospital
uploaded into the new system. Decisions need to be made as to whether the electronic system
will run parallel to the manual system for a trial period or take over completely from the manual
one. Running parallel systems would ensure backup, but sometimeswhensystems running
parallel it’s oftendifficult to cut-off later. If the above issues have been addressed and the
institution/ government see a possibility of successful implementation, it may be best to have a
complete cut-off from the manual system upon full implementation of the EHR.
• Phased Implementation - The second option is to phase-in implementation unit-by-unit. This
appears to be preferred by many institutions/countries thatrealise the introductionof an EHR
system is an enormous task with significant change required. It may also be themost appropriate
planfor developing countries. With limited resources, both technical and human, phased