Comparison of clinical knowledge management capabilities of commercially-available and leading internally-developed electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: We have carried out an extensive qualitative research program focused on the barriers and facilitators to successful adoption and use of various features of advanced, state-of-the-art electronic health records (EHRs) within large, academic, teaching facilities with long-standing EHR research and development programs. We have recently begun investigating smaller, community hospitals and out-patient clinics that rely on commercially-available EHRs. We sought to assess whether the current generation of commercially-available EHRs are capable of providing the clinical knowledge management features, functions, tools, and techniques required to deliver and maintain the clinical decision support (CDS) interventions required to support the recently defined "meaningful use" criteria. METHODS: We developed and fielded a 17-question survey to representatives from nine commercially available EHR vendors and four leading internally developed EHRs. The first part of the survey asked basic questions about the vendor's EHR. The second part asked specifically about the CDS-related system tools and capabilities that each vendor provides. The final section asked about clinical content. RESULTS: All of the vendors and institutions have multiple modules capable of providing clinical decision support interventions to clinicians. The majority of the systems were capable of performing almost all of the key knowledge management functions we identified. CONCLUSION: If these well-designed commercially-available systems are coupled with the other key socio-technical concepts required for safe and effective EHR implementation and use, and organizations have access to implementable clinical knowledge, we expect that the transformation of the healthcare enterprise that so many have predicted, is achievable using commercially-available, state-of-the-art EHRs.

A survey of the implementation status of environmental management systems in U.S. colleges and universities, and, An environmental management system implementation model for U.S. colleges and universities

A census of 925 U.S. colleges and universities offering masters and doctorate degrees was conducted in order to study the number of elements of an environmental management system as defined by ISO 14001 possessed by small, medium and large institutions. A 30% response rate was received with 273 responses included in the final data analysis. Overall, the number of ISO 14001 elements implemented among the 273 institutions ranged from 0 to 16, with a median of 12. There was no significant association between the number of elements implemented among institutions and the size of the institution (p = 0.18; Kruskal-Wallis test) or among USEPA regions (p = 0.12; Kruskal-Wallis test). The proportion of U.S. colleges and universities that reported having implemented a structured, comprehensive environmental management system, defined by answering yes to all 16 elements, was 10% (95% C.I. 6.6%–14.1%); however 38% (95% C.I. 32.0%–43.8%) reported that they had implemented a structured, comprehensive environmental management system, while 30.0% (95% C.I. 24.7%–35.9%) are planning to implement a comprehensive environmental management system within the next five years. Stratified analyses were performed by institution size, Carnegie Classification and job title. ^ The Osnabruck model, and another under development by the South Carolina Sustainable Universities Initiative, are the only two environmental management system models that have been proposed specifically for colleges and universities, although several guides are now available. The Environmental Management System Implementation Model for U.S. Colleges and Universities developed is an adaptation of the ISO 14001 standard and USEPA recommendations and has been tailored to U.S. colleges and universities for use in streamlining the implementation process. In using this implementation model created for the U.S. research and academic setting, it is hoped that these highly specialized institutions will be provided with a clearer and more cost-effective path towards the implementation of an EMS and greater compliance with local, state and federal environmental legislation. ^

Analysis of a disaster medical track for the Certificate in Emergency Management and Preparedness Program at the University of Texas at Dallas

Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the United States has engaged in building the infrastructure and developing the expertise necessary to protect its borders and its citizens from further attacks against its homeland. One approach has been the development of academic courses to educate individuals on the nature and dangers of subversive attacks and to prepare them to respond to attacks and other large-scale emergencies in their roles as working professionals, participating members of their communities, and collaborators with first responders. An initial review of the literature failed to reveal any university-based emergency management courses or programs with a disaster medical component, despite the public health significance and need for such programs. In the Fall of 2003, The School of Management at The University of Texas at Dallas introduced a continuing education Certificate in Emergency Management and Preparedness Program. This thesis will (1) describe the development and implementation of a new Disaster Medical Track as a component of this Certificate in Emergency Management and Preparedness Program, (2) analyze the need for and effectiveness of this Disaster Medical Track, and (3) propose improvements in the track based on this analysis. ^

Academic medical centers: A framework for strategic repositioning

This study sought to understand the elements affecting the success or failure of strategic repositioning efforts by academic medical centers (AMC). The research question was: What specific elements in the process appear to be most important in determining the success or failure of an AMC.s strategic repositioning? Where success is based on the longterm sustainability of the new position.^ "An organization's strategic position is its perceptual location relative to others" (Gershon, 2003). Hence, strategic repositioning represents a shift from one strategic position within an environment to another (H. Mintzberg, 1987a). A deteriorating value proposition coupled with an unsustainable national health care financing system is forcing AMCs to change their strategic position. Where the value proposition is defined as the health outcome per dollar spent. ^ AMCs are of foundational importance to our health care system. They educate our new physicians, generate significant scientific breakthroughs, and care for our most difficult patients. Yet, their strategic, financial and business acumen leaves them particularly vulnerable in a changing environment. ^ After a literature review revealed limited writing on this subject, the research question was addressed using three separate but parallel exploratory case study inquiries of AMCs that recently underwent a strategic repositioning. Participating in the case studies were the Baylor College of Medicine, the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, and the University of Texas Medical Branch.^ Each case study consisted of two major research segments; a thorough documentation review followed by semi-structured interviews of selected members of their governance board, executive and faculty leadership teams. While each case study.s circumstances varied, their response to the research question, as extracted through thematic coding and analysis of the interviews, had a high degree of commonality.^ The results identified managing the strategic risk surrounding the repositioning and leadership accountability as the two foundational elements of success or failure. Metrics and communication were important process elements. They both play a major role in managing the strategic repositioning risk communication loop. Sustainability, the final element, was the outcome sought.^ Factors leading to strategic repositioning included both internal and external pressures and were primarily financial or mission based. Timing was an important consideration as was the selection of the strategic repositioning endpoint.^ In conclusion, a framework for the strategic repositioning of AMCs was offered that integrates the findings of this study; the elements of success, the factors leading to strategic repositioning, and the risk communication loop. ^