4. In which ways is the initiative creative and innovative?
|
The responsible authority, KFSHRC, has a standard implementation strategy and this was at the core of the implementation methodology that was adopted for this initiative. The first part of this strategy involved the following steps:
• Collecting data from relevant departments and other sources
• A thorough work flow analysis was conducted by the MCI team
• The team also conducted a Gap Analysis, which considered all different options and possibilities
As a result of these initial steps, the following three options were identified by the team as a short list:
Option 1 – All of the documentary information could be entered into electronic medical records using Power Form, which would be completed by the relevant social worker. From this point, Discern Rules could be utilized and the rest of the workflow could be automated by the use of Tracking Board.
Option 2 – All of the relevant information could be entered through Power Note by the Attending Physician. The rest of the flow described in Option 1 would then continue (the utilization of Discern Rules and the automation of the rest of the workflow through Tracking Board).
Option 3 – This involves capturing the codified problem in the Problem List through physician documentation, and then utilizing the Discern Rules and automated events in the Tracking Board to automate the remainder of the workflow.
An evaluation of the three options led to a conclusion that the first two held significantly more potential for human error for this reason, it option 3 was chosen. Following this choice, a number of further steps towards implementation were taken. These included:
• The demonstration of the principles underpinning the system to stakeholder departments within the healthcare system by the MCI Team.
• The designing of the future workflow in conjunction with health care partners and stakeholders.
• The establishment of quality measures within the implementation and monitoring design for the system, which were aligned with a benefits realisation survey (again, this was done in collaboration with healthcare partners and stakeholders).
• Refinement of the selected option following the receipt of feedback from relevant departments.
• Training of all health care providers working in the affected areas, including Physicians and Nurses for the Emergency and Inpatient Units.
• Existing policies and procedures were amended and updated to accommodate the new system and reflect the required workflow practices.
• The new workflow was implemented within the Production Domain.
• Post implementation quality measures were enacted, along with benefits realization assessments.
|
|
5. Who implemented the initiative and what is the size of the population affected by this initiative?
|
Employees from two key institutions were primarily responsible for the design and implementation of the initiative. These are the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre (KFSHRC) medical staff and those from the Medical and Clinical Informatics Department (MCI), albeit that stakeholders and partners from other parts of the Hospital and from other health offices and departments were also involved.
The staff involved from KFSHRC included subject matter experts/specialists, the Head of the Child Advocacy Committee, social workers as a group and physicians.
Those from MCI included the Project Sponsor, the Project Executive, the Project Manager, the Benefits Coordinator, the Change Management Specialist and the IPP Coordinator.
|
6. How was the strategy implemented and what resources were mobilized?
|
The human resource costs were met entirely by existing employees from a number of agencies. These can be divided into two areas of speciality – those who are within the healthcare for child abuse victims and those who provided the technical expertise. Because these two areas met at points of practicality, cohesion and collaboration was at the core of the success of the initiative and this was encapsulated in the person of Aqila Almattar, who was the Project Manager overseeing the initiative.
With regard to clinical and medical expertise, the human resources utilised were subject matter experts that included physicians, nursing staff, social workers and the Head of the Clinical Advocacy Committee.
On the technical side, Adele Sandeman was the Application Specialist whose responsibilities included designing, building and validation of the PowerChart aspects of the Project, as well as technical training, implementation and benefits realization. Another Application Specialist, Fahad Alogaili, had responsibility for FirstNet as the resource that was used for building Tracking Board. Dianne Aker took on the role of Systems Manager and with it the responsibilities associated with changes to Internal Policies and Procedures.
The design, implementation and initial monitoring and evaluation of the initiative lasted for approximately one year and no external funding was requested or offered. It was felt (and subsequently justified) that there were sufficient resources, financial, human and technical, that were internally available to cover all aspects of the initiative.
|
|
7. Who were the stakeholders involved in the design of the initiative and in its implementation?
|
A number of successful outputs can be cited for this initiative, but far and away the most important, and therefore the overwhelming success story that emerges from it is the fact that perhaps the most vulnerable and at risk groups within society – abused children – can be saved in terms of further serious psychological and physical damage, or even in terms of their lives. The simple fact of an automatic pop-up within the normal routines of patients being dealt with at accident and emergency centres or other departments opens guaranteed avenues of safety from further harm for these victims.
Following on from this, the initiative means that appropriate and ongoing care can be provided not only with regard to immediate caring needs but also through the social care system by following defined policies and procedures.
The initiative and its implementation, along with the training provided to health care workers, means that there is increased awareness not only of the signs of child abuse but also of the potential seriousness of individual cases. Thus, there is an enhanced potential for earlier identification through normal and routine medical channels of abuse cases and their subsequent management.
There is also the matter of efficiency –as a result of automation, pop-ups will automatically appear when medical records are electronically accessed. There is no longer a need for staff to spend time looking for notes and paper documents either as a matter of routine or even to ‘make sure’ when there are any elements of doubt.
In the ways described above, health care staff are effectively empowered and part of this empowerment comes from them being able to work within a paradigm of new and optimized workflow standardized care, which improves compliance with the defined policies and procedures outlined, and which can be adjusted and ‘fine tuned’ over time as monitoring through statistical analysis and informal and formal surveying of stakeholder employees continues.
|
|
8. What were the most successful outputs and why was the initiative effective?
|
Several significant points should be made with regard to this initiative which on the one hand positions it within a specific and very important area of monitoring and evaluation and on the other makes it critical that specific standards, ethical and moral, are maintained.
Monitoring within ethical standards are at the core of the Child Advocacy Committee. During the course of internal meetings of this committee, standards are monitored and evaluated to ensure that compliance with policies and procedures are upheld in each individual case. Thus, while the policies and procedures exist within the design and functions of the initiative, they are regularly monitored and evaluated from a specifically ethical stance by review of cases.
As well as this, the Medical and Clinical Informatics Department (MCI) produces quarterly reports which monitor the Discern Alerts to ensure that they are still operating to the standards set and that they are within their operational design framework.
|
|
9. What were the main obstacles encountered and how were they overcome?
|
The most challenging problem encountered by the initiative in terms of design and implementation was how to automate the process without compromising the identity of an abused child. The sensitivity of these cases allied with the culture of Saudi Arabia meant that confidentiality was the prime concern and this fact limited many of the options available for development. The problem was overcome by the use of a non-specific codified problem that is documented on these children’s Problem List in their electronic medical records (EMR’s) (The signal in this area is ‘Negative Life Event in Childhood, Unspecified’). This documented problem in turn triggers discern rules which place a non-specific order of ‘Care Patient’ on the patients’ order profile for an Emergency Encounter in the EMR. This order in turn triggers a new event icon, called ‘Care Patient’ in the First Net application that displays on the Tracking Board. Although this icon is viewable to all staff in the Emergency Unit, it is non-specific. Staff are all trained to understand what the specific icon means and what to do when it displays. The Documented Problem also triggers a pop-up message: “CARE PATIERNT” when nurses and physicians enter the EMR for all encounters.
A further obstacle, which also concerned confidentiality, was the limitation of Cerner tools because some of the available options did not have the required ability to ensure the integrity of confidentiality for child abuse cases. No security could be satisfactorily built around Power Forms or Power Notes and, if used, the information would be viewable to anybody with access to the patient’s EMR. With patient confidentiality being the primary concern throughout, the risk of stigmatising children superseded any other operational consideration and so these options were excluded from the implementation of the initiative.
|