Is Enterprise-class WiFi an Oxymoron?

I have never launched a point of care application on wireless devices that has not had immediate and ongoing problems.  Usually the problems are enough to be annoying but not severe enough to scrap the initiative.  Even the highly paid outside network engineers can’t seem to provide me the flawless wireless connectivity that the vendors and trade journals lead me to believe is possible.

Recently I spoke to a group of hospitals on behalf of a consulting friend of mine.  As part of that favor I reviewed a short assessment of each of the 4 hospitals.  All of them had three things in common with our 14 hospitals:

  1. They all cited medication scanning at the point of administration as their top clinical priority.  Our three Affinity hospitals in the Fox valley have implemented this and the others want to join them.
  2. They all cited frustrations with their Carts on Wheels (aka COWs).  I too have yet to find the perfect choice.
  3. They all cited frustrations with wifi reliability in their clinical areas.

I suppose misery loves company.  How did we all buy-in to this enterprise wireless disappointment?

What is your experience?  Does anyone have the secret code?

Upgrades

Ministry’s approach to product updates has changed over the years.  Previously, we endeavored to take all upgrades as they became available.  Recently, we have taken a different approach.  Our IT resources are scarce and demand is high.  We have to have a compelling reason to commit resources to any effort.  We now postpone upgrades unless there is a compelling reason such as a new feature with a significant ROI; remediation of a painful problem; or end of support for the current version.

The existing version of any application has hundreds of features that we are not leveraging.  So, stating that newer is better is not sufficient rationale.

This philosophy applies to desktop software (Office, Windows) and enterprise applications (Meditech, GE Centricity, Picis).

What’s your approach?

Memories of Jeanne Gittings

This week a dear friend of mine passed away suddenly.  Jeanne Gittings ran the library at Trinity Regional Health System.  Jeanne and I worked together from 1995 to 2000.  A fraction of her career in the Trinity – she started in 1969 after receiving her degree from Augustana that same year.

Jeanne was dedicated to her role as a medical librarian.  It seemed more like a calling than a career.  She was selfless and constantly adopting with the times.  I got to work with Jeanne during the Internet revolution.  During that time I saw the library go from periodicals and books to PubMed and the web.

Jeanne and I taught a series of community classes on how to search for reliable medical information on the Internet.  She convinced me that I should be demonstrating Google searches (at the time I was an Alta Vista user).

After leaving Trinity I found that all medical librarians seem to demonstrate the traits of service and adaptability.  At Affinity I found that Michele Matucheski and Mary Bayorgeon were from that same mold.

Appreciate your medical librarians.  I can’t think of a better way to honor Jeanne’s memory.

6:3:1

Now that we have been using our disciplined Project Management approach at Ministry for 3 years we have collected a lot of project data.  Reviewing the larger projects I have observed the typical IT project work effort is provided by:

  • IT – 60%
  • Business – 30%
  • Project Management Office – 10%
Does anyone know of similar statistics (yours or published)?

It’s Quiet Out There, Too Quiet

At any moment in time our IT organization is involved in 40+ IT projects.  An IT initiatives has to be greater than 100 hours to be considered a project.  The only way we can do this with an acceptable level of success is with the support of our Project Management Office.

Our Project Managers do not usually get involved in completing the tasks in a project (although they will occasionally pitch in).  Generally they are assisting the IT and business champions with developing a plan and managing to that plan.  There are a number of project controls that leadership relies on to monitor projects and get involved when necessary.  The status report is one of those controls.  Every Friday the Project Managers update all of the status reports.  I spend a lot of time reading status reports.

When projects are behind schedule, not receiving the anticipated level of effort or in jeopardy of not meeting its objectives I tend to get involved and see what is necessary t get on track.  Often this is just a phone call with some words of advice.  I think the phone call and attention may be more important than the actual advice.

But, some projects with glowing status reports will receive a lot of attention from me.  I am sure my IT teammates must think I randomly decide to get involved in some projects.  Our very observant CMIO, Dr. Pete Sanderson, has cracked the code.  This is what Pete recently observed…

While the status reports are an important project control, the issues list is even more important to me.  I have a sense of how many issues a project should be generating based on size and complexity.  I expect issues.  Surfacing issues is a sign of progress.  Typically the status report will identify how many issues that project is managing.  If I don’t see that information in the status report I will pull reports out of our issue tracking system.

The ideal project will have lots of issues with lots of progress addressing those issues.  On-time projects with no issues bother me more than late projects with lots of issues.

If you don’t have an online system for managing project issues it is time, in my opinion, to make that a priority.  Excel doesn’t work.  You need something that can be edited simultaneously by multiple users.  I prefer QuickBase (www.quickbase.com).  But, there are lots of options.

Extract-ware

There are a series of applications available that I call “extract-ware”.  These applications receive an extract of your data with the promise of allowing you to have the ability to analyze and monitor your data.  They are generally dealing with a niche like productivity, quality, provider benchmarking or market share.

I am very skeptical of these systems.  My experience is that they are typically 10 times more complicated than leaders expect and are often used much less widely than expected.

These systems are sold to business leaders that do not understand the underlying data.  The sellers of these systems leave the business buyers with the impression that these extracts are simple and every hospital has the exact same data.  In the end it turns into a huge exercise.  It is left to interpret some extract specification and deal with the following:

  • Data is simply not available, which requires lengthy process changes.
  • Data is not clean, leaders have used fields to store different data than intended.
  • Data requires significant mapping, which is a huge ongoing burden for IT.

Usually the data issues can be conquered (with a significant and unanticipated amount of time and money).  But, in my experience, these systems still tend to fail.  They simple never get the widespread adoption originally anticipated.  Users, who want the data, never use it for a variety of reasons:

  • Often these systems require additional credentials.  Since users access these systems infrequently they can’t recall their password when they go to use the system – and they don’t have the time to call the help desk.
  • The systems lack the level of development needed to make them intuitive and easy to use.  If any training at all is required, they will fail.
  • Complicating this is that they have multiple extract-ware systems, often with different credentials behaving and looking completely different.
  • Time

My Management Philosophy on Feedback

Recently, we got a glimpse into internal emails sent by Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.  They were both to a large audience and both were critical of internal efforts.  I found these to be reassuring in that they seem to echo my own personal philosophy regarding employee feedback:  Be candid, tell people (individually or collectively) when they do a good job and tell them when they don’t meet your expectations.

I prefer to give feedback direclty to the people, even if there are levels of management between us.  To some people this may be a bit of a shock.  In my experience many managers have trouble giving people negative feedback.  But I believe people need to understand what is expected and how they need to improve to meet expectations.  Hearing it directly from me has additional weight and ensures nothing is lost through intermediaries.

Of course there are a number of amazing things being done at Affinity and Ministry every day.  I try to thank people for their extraordinary efforts.  It is hard to recognize all of the good work.  It is one of the most challenging things in a division of 200+ people.

Other Bloggers at Work

There are actually other bloggers here (Ministry and/or Affinity).  I love this.  I work with so many bright people with something interesting to share.  I hope they inspire others to blog.

Pete Sanderson, MD

MD Leader is the blog I read most often, and am most close to.  It belongs to Pete Sanderson, MD.  He is Ministry’s CMIO.

Pete’s blog features both of his talents: healthcare IT and photography.  It is a surprising mix, but it really works.

Eric Haglund is on our IT leadership team.  His blog is called Appropriate IT.  I love his candor.

Michele Matucheski runs Affinity’s library.  She maintains a blog to update our staff and physicians regarding what is new at the library.  She also blogs to to communicate CME opportunities to the clinicians in our community, a great solution for reaching a lot of people outside of our network.  Michele also has a knitting and crafts blog which I do not visit as often.

Ministry’s EHR Announcement

Today, Governor Doyle announced our plans to create the largest patient database in the state of Wisconsin.  We appreciate the recognition from Madison and the inspiration we received from the governor’s e-health initiative.  Both efforts recognize that information silos are limiting quality of care and patient safety.

In April 2006 a group of key Ministry IT, Business and Clinical Leaders collaborated to develop an Electronic Health Record (EHR) vision that has served us well over the last two years as we developed our Clinical IT Strategy.

By the end of June 2006, using that vision as our foundation, we identified the need for a single Electronic Health Record to be shared across all of our Ministry Medical Group Clinics and hospitals in Central and Northern Wisconsin.  In addition to the need for a single, shared electronic health record we realized that our greatest clinical functionality gap exists in our medical groups.  We set out to find the best solution to provide us that single patient database and revolutionize how we care for patients in our clinics.

Ministry used a traditional system selection process to look at all of the established options in the market place.  Through our Request for Proposal process we developed a short list of options that included Epic, GE and a commercial product that the Marshfield Clinic was bringing to market: CattailsMD.

I was very hesitant about the notion of buying a new product, especially one that was developed by a company that has not traditionally sold software.  However, the opportunity to expand our vision for a shared patient database beyond our organization to include our largest patient care partners was too important not to consider.

I strongly believe that our selection process was very thorough.  we laid out the options to key leaders and medical staff members who challenged us to be very thorough in our analysis. A thorough selection of this magnitude requires a great deal of time.

In August 2007 I recommended to the Ministry board of Directors that we name CattailsMD as our Ministry-wide EHR vendor of choice.  I actually did not think this is where we would end, but we have been very surprised how well the CattailsMD offering has stacked up to the competition.  We are also very excited about their willingness to include Ministry as equal partners in the development of the product, even before the contract was signed.  We have identified 6 critical enhancements and developed details specifications.

However, we committed to the board a full business case.  We did not want to have the same experience as others that have had clinical IT projects that have run well over plan (schedule and cost).  I have half-jokingly reminded my team that our primary indicator of success will be CIO retention.  If I am still at Ministry at the end of this effort that means we did it properly.  The most important aspect of success is the preparation.

We spent 8 months developing detailed plans and testing the most technically challenging aspects of the project.  all of this was done in partnership with Marshfield Clinic without a committeemen to purchase their offering.  This level of collaboration would not exist with a traditional software vendor.  It is refreshing to have a partner with the same level of commitment to a mutually agreed upon definition of success.

This decision meant that over 1,000 doctors in our region of Wisconsin will share an Electronic Health Record.  They will jointly contribute to patient’s single medication, allergy, immunization and problem lists.  All patient care documentation will be accessible anywhere and immediately.  I believe that RHIOs (aka CHINS) have largely been a failure.  If we want real integration today, that is a quantum leap in patient care, it is clear to me that a shared electronic health record is the best way to accomplish this.

Of course I am the CIO at Affinity Health System as well.  They are observing Ministry’s progress as they look at their EHR options.

Today, many hospitals are extending the electronic records to their non-employed medical staff.  Ministry’s approach turns that model upside down.  Instead, we are purchasing an EHR from our physicians.

Now that this announcement is public I will have lots more to share.  It is my intention to use this forum to be very candid about our experience.  I believe part of our mission includes sharing what works and what was not ideal so others can improve their care, even our competitors.

I am so thankful for those that have made this happen.  Our planning project alone was 12,000 hours of effort.  It has been an incredible collaboration of medical group leadership, practicing physicians, senior leadership, Ministry’s project management office and IT.

To Do 2.0

I never really used Outlook’s To Do list. I tried a couple of times, but it became overwhelming and there was not enough functionality to assign deadlines, add notes and stratify tasks. So, I managed my To Do list in my Inbox and in my mind.Remember The Milk Logo

After a number of positive comments rememberthemilk.com (or rmilk.com for short) I decided t try managing my life online. So far so good. This web 2.0 application is proving to be have enough boost of functionality to make it worthwhile. I am almost always wired, so I use it in my browser. There is a BlackBerry sync, but I have not tried that.

I will let you know if I stick with it.