PURPOSE: To develop, conduct, and evaluate a proactive risk assessment (PRA) of the design and implementation of CPOE in an ICU. METHODS: We developed a PRA method based on issues identified from documented experience with conventional PRA methods and the constraints of an organization about to implement CPOE in an intensive care unit. The PRA method consists of three phases: planning (three months), team (one five-hour meeting), and evaluation (short- and long-term). RESULTS: Sixteen unique relevant vulnerabilities were identified as a result of the PRA team's efforts. Negative consequences resulting from the vulnerabilities included potential patient safety and quality of care issues, non-compliance with regulatory requirements, increases in cognitive burden on CPOE users, and/or worker inconvenience or distress. Actions taken to address the vulnerabilities included redesign of the technology, process (workflow) redesign, user training, and/or ongoing monitoring. Verbal and written evaluation by the team members indicated that the PRA method was useful and that participants were willing to participate in future PRAs. Long-term evaluation was accomplished by monitoring an ongoing "issues list" of CPOE problems identified by or reported to IT staff. Vulnerabilities identified by the team were either resolved prior to CPOE implementation (n=7) or shortly thereafter (n=9). No other issues were identified beside those identified by the team. CONCLUSIONS: Generally positive results from the various evaluations including a long-term evaluation demonstrate the value of developing an efficient PRA method that meets organizational and contextual requirements and constraints.
PURPOSE: To develop, conduct, and evaluate a proactive risk assessment (PRA) of the design and implementation of CPOE in an ICU. METHODS: We developed a PRA method based on issues identified from documented experience with conventional PRA methods and the constraints of an organization about to implement CPOE in an intensive care unit. The PRA method consists of three phases: planning (three months), team (one five-hour meeting), and evaluation (short- and long-term). RESULTS: Sixteen unique relevant vulnerabilities were identified as a result of the PRA team's efforts. Negative consequences resulting from the vulnerabilities included potential patient safety and quality of care issues, non-compliance with regulatory requirements, increases in cognitive burden on CPOE users, and/or worker inconvenience or distress. Actions taken to address the vulnerabilities included redesign of the technology, process (workflow) redesign, user training, and/or ongoing monitoring. Verbal and written evaluation by the team members indicated that the PRA method was useful and that participants were willing to participate in future PRAs. Long-term evaluation was accomplished by monitoring an ongoing "issues list" of CPOE problems identified by or reported to IT staff. Vulnerabilities identified by the team were either resolved prior to CPOE implementation (n=7) or shortly thereafter (n=9). No other issues were identified beside those identified by the team. CONCLUSIONS: Generally positive results from the various evaluations including a long-term evaluation demonstrate the value of developing an efficient PRA method that meets organizational and contextual requirements and constraints.
Authors: Kamal Nagpal; Amit Vats; Kamran Ahmed; Andrea B Smith; Nick Sevdalis; Helgi Jonannsson; Charles Vincent; Krishna Moorthy Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2010-06
Authors: Tosha B Wetterneck; Kathleen A Skibinski; Tanita L Roberts; Susan M Kleppin; Mark E Schroeder; Myra Enloe; Steven S Rough; Ann Schoofs Hundt; Pascale Carayon Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2006-08-15 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Hélène Faye; A Joy Rivera-Rodriguez; Ben-Tzion Karsh; Ann Schoofs Hundt; Christine Baker; Pascale Carayon Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2010-08
Authors: Derek W Meeks; Amirhossein Takian; Dean F Sittig; Hardeep Singh; Nick Barber Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Pascale Carayon; Ben-Tzion Karsh; Ayse P Gurses; Richard Holden; Peter Hoonakker; Ann Schoofs Hundt; Enid Montague; Joy Rodriguez; Tosha B Wetterneck Journal: Rev Hum Factors Ergon Date: 2013-09-01
Authors: Richard J Holden; Pascale Carayon; Ayse P Gurses; Peter Hoonakker; Ann Schoofs Hundt; A Ant Ozok; A Joy Rivera-Rodriguez Journal: Ergonomics Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Pascale Carayon; Tosha B Wetterneck; A Joy Rivera-Rodriguez; Ann Schoofs Hundt; Peter Hoonakker; Richard Holden; Ayse P Gurses Journal: Appl Ergon Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Taylor L Watterson; Jamie A Stone; Roger Brown; Ka Z Xiong; Anthony Schiefelbein; Edmond Ramly; Peter Kleinschmidt; Michael Semanik; Lauren Craddock; Samantha Pitts; Taylor Woodroof; Michelle A Chui Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 4.497