A Rough Ride at the Theodore Roosevelt Cancer Center

  • Karen Albert
  • Nitika Gupta
  • Teresa Mason
  • Purvi Mehta
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


Nurse Carolyn Harried walked quickly down the narrow halls of the Theodore Roosevelt Cancer Center (TRCC), rushing to complete her rounds of surgical patients. She could hear the rain pounding at the window, adding to her stress from the busy, difficult shift. Her last patient, Mrs. Surgerized, looked pale, but was sleeping quietly following her radical mastectomy. Nurse Harried glanced at the JP drain inserted at the end of surgery, and noticed there was more drainage since the last check. She jotted down the amount, so that she could record it in the computer’s new Intake/Output (I/O) module. Although she had been instructed to use tablet PCs for data entry, she preferred the desktop workstations to the cumbersome tablet setup. She found an open workstation and stared at the blinking Teddy Roosevelt cursor as the log-on process proceeded slowly. The program finally launched, and a couple of screens later she was on the I/O page where she recorded her numbers and printed out the report for Dr. Lerner, the Surgical Fellow on-call for the evening.

Dr. Lerner grabbed a cup of coffee, picked up his patients’ charts, and began his review. He was not happy with the new I/O format and wondered why the attending surgeons had not gotten to evaluate this module prior to rollout. He tried to decipher the I/O data, loaded the patient charts onto a cart, and made quick bedside rounds. He noticed that Mrs. Surgerized appeared pale, so he rechecked her I/O numbers which seemed to indicate that there had not been excessive drainage from the JP tube. He noted that a complete blood cell count (CBC) had been ordered for the morning, and he made a mental note to recheck this patient before tomorrow’s rounds.


Electronic Health Record User Satisfaction Project Leader Computerize Physician Order Entry Clinical System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Lorenzi NM, Riley RT. Understanding and analyzing organizational structures. In: Lorenzi NM, Riley RT, eds. Managing Technological Change. New York: Springer; 2004.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aarts J, Doorewaard H, Berg M. Understanding implementation: the case of a computerized physician order entry system in a large Dutch university medical center. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11(3):207-216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berg M. Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges. Int J Med Inform. 2001;64(2-3):143-156.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hagland M. Interoperability conundrum: EMR implementation options go beyond core vendor and best of breed. Healthc Inform. 2005;22(5):28-30, 32, 34.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lorenzi NM, Riley RT, Blyth AJ, Southon G, Dixon BJ. Antecedents of the people and organizational aspects of medical informatics: review of the literature. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997;4(2):79-93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lorenzi NM, Riley RT. Gaining physician acceptance. In: Lorenzi NM, Riley RT, eds. Managing Technological Change. New York: Springer; 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Campbell EM, Sittig DF, Ash JS, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(5):547-556.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gill RA, Walker JM. Optimizing inpatient care. In: Walker JM, Bieber EJ, Richards F, eds. Implementing an Electronic Health Record System. London: Springer; 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ash JS, Sittig DF, Campbell E, Guappone K, Dykstra RH. An unintended consequence of CPOE implementation: shifts in power, control, and autonomy. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006:11-15.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lorenzi NM, Riley RT. Critical design (redesign) issues. In: Lorenzi NM, Riley RT, eds. Managing Technological Change: Organizational Aspects of Health Informatics. New York: Springer; 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Massaro TA. Introducing physician order entry at a major academic medical center: II. Impact on medical education. Acad Med. 1993;68(1):25-30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robbins SP, Judge T. Organizational Behavior. 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall; 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    iHealthBeat, California HealthCare Foundation. Online system reduces nurse documentation time.; October 2002.
  14. 14.
    Wong DH, Gallegos Y, Weinger MB, Clack S, Slagle J, Anderson CT. Changes in intensive care unit nurse task activity after installation of a third-generation intensive care unit information system. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(10):2488-2494.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Case J, Mowry MM, Welebob E, First Consulting Group, California HealthCare Foundation. The nursing shortage: can technology help?, ihealth reports. Oakland, CA: California HealthCare Foundation; 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ammenwerth E, Mansmann U, Iller C, Eichstadter R. Factors affecting and affected by user acceptance of computer-based nursing documentation: results of a two-year study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(1):69-84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ammenwerth E, Eichstadter R, Haux R, Pohl U, Rebel S, Ziegler S. A randomized evaluation of a computer-based nursing documentation system. Methods Inf Med. 2001;40(2):61-68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liaskos J, Mantas J. Measuring the user acceptance of a web-based nursing documentation system. Methods Inf Med. 2006;45(1):116-120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Banet GA, Jeffe DB, Williams JA, Asaro PV. Effects of implementing computerized practitioner order entry and nursing documentation on nursing workflow in an emergency department. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2006;20(2):45-54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y. The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(5):505-516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moody LE, Slocumb E, Berg B, Jackson D. Electronic health records documentation in nursing – nurses’ perceptions, attitudes, and preferences. Comput Inform Nurs. 2004;22(6):337-344.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kossman SP. Perceptions of impact of electronic health records on nurses’ work. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006;122:337-341.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Timmons S. The potential contribution of social science to information technology implementation in healthcare. Comput Inform Nurs. 2002;20(2):74-78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lorenzi NM, Riley RT. Managing change: an overview. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000;7(2):116-124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ash JS, Bates DW. Factors and forces affecting EHR system adoption: report of a 2004 ACMI discussion. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(1):8-12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dykstra R. Computerized physician order entry and communication: reciprocal impacts. Proc AMIA Symp. 2002:230-234.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Österlund J, Lovén E. Information versus inertia: a model for product change with low inertia. Syst Res Behav Sci. 2005;22(6):547-560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ash JS, Stavri PZ, Kuperman GJ. A consensus statement on considerations for a successful CPOE implementation. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(3):229-234.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scott JT, Rundall TG, Vogt TM, Hsu J. Kaiser Permanente’s experience of implementing an electronic medical record: a qualitative study. BMJ. 2005;331(7528):1313-1316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fischer D, Koziol R, Paust M, Soley J. Aligning strategic project goals with organizational goals during technology implementations: hospitals and health systems. CherryRoad Technologies, Inc.; 2003.
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Ammenwerth E, Kutscha U, Kutscha A, Mahler C, Eichstadter R, Haux R. Nursing process documentation systems in clinical routine – prerequisites and experiences. Int J Med Inform. 2001;64(2-3):187-200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bertelsen P, Madsen I, Hostrup P. Work flow analysis prior to implementation of an Electronic Patient Record (EPR): a method to disclose inconsistencies between the paper based medical record and the EPR. In: Fieschi M, ed. Medinfo 2004: Proceedings of the 11th World Congress on Medical Informatics. Fairfax, VA: IOS Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1197-1203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ahmad A, Teater P, Bentley TD, et al. Key attributes of a successful physician order entry system implementation in a multi-hospital environment. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9(1):16-24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Young D. CPOE takes time, patience, money, and teamwork. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2003;60(7):635, 639-640, 642 passim.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Parker P. Solutions success: clinical documentation technology. Nurs Manage. 2002;33(2):39-40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Albert
    • 1
  • Nitika Gupta
    • 1
  • Teresa Mason
    • 1
  • Purvi Mehta
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical EpidemiologyOregon Health and Science UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations