Difference between revisions of "Building a comprehensive clinical information system from components"
Lipscombejm (Talk | contribs) |
m |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
They outline three options for developing clinical systems: | They outline three options for developing clinical systems: | ||
− | + | <li>Build all of the applications from scratch. Although this has been a successful model for most currently existing systems, it would effectively mean duplicating the development effort a vendor can spread costs across many customers. | |
− | Build all of the applications from scratch. Although this has been a successful model for most currently existing systems, it would effectively mean duplicating the development effort a vendor can spread costs across many customers. | + | <li>Purchase all applications from a single vendor to insure ease of implementation and seamless integration. It is often less expensive to buy and interface an existing system than to rebuild something that already exists from scratch. On the other hand, no single vendor can satisfy all the desired functionality, and the future of the system is tied to the viability of the vendor over a projected 20-25 year system lifetime. |
− | + | <li>Build the system from components and use a common longitudinal repository. For institutions with knowledgeable people and the resources to invest in this approach, they believe it will ultimately be more flexible and cost effective than the alternatives. They expect the advantages to increase as the costs of interfaces are reduced by improved standards for vocabulary and messaging. | |
− | Purchase all applications from a single vendor to insure ease of implementation and seamless integration. It is often less expensive to buy and interface an existing system than to rebuild something that already exists from scratch. On the other hand, no single vendor can satisfy all the desired functionality, and the future of the system is tied to the viability of the vendor over a projected 20-25 year system lifetime. | + | |
− | + | ||
− | Build the system from components and use a common longitudinal repository. For institutions with knowledgeable people and the resources to invest in this approach, they believe it will ultimately be more flexible and cost effective than the alternatives. They expect the advantages to increase as the costs of interfaces are reduced by improved standards for vocabulary and messaging. | + | |
In 2002 there were a total of 820 instances of interfaces to 51 different applications including clinical systems (clinical laboratory, PACS, blood bank, anatomic pathology, surgery scheduling, transcription, etc,) financial systems and external partners. Not surprisingly, they found that building the interfaces between the components was a high percentage of project time and cost. They found costs of the interfaces amounted to 20% of the total application software costs and about four percent of the total information systems budget. | In 2002 there were a total of 820 instances of interfaces to 51 different applications including clinical systems (clinical laboratory, PACS, blood bank, anatomic pathology, surgery scheduling, transcription, etc,) financial systems and external partners. Not surprisingly, they found that building the interfaces between the components was a high percentage of project time and cost. They found costs of the interfaces amounted to 20% of the total application software costs and about four percent of the total information systems budget. |
Revision as of 14:46, 27 July 2006
Use of Components in Building Clinical Systems
Spurred by the decision to support ambulatory as well as acute care, Intermountan Health Care decided to preserve its investment in multiplevendor and custom technologies and tie the various pieces together using a component-based, open architecture approach to building clinical information systems. In this paper, they discuss their chosen architecture and compare it to other approaches. Their clinical data repository contains the records for 1.48 million patients, and the system (in 2002) had 369 GB of storage capacity. They process nearly 2 million transactions per day via the interface engine and 2416 individual clinical users log on to the system at least once a month. The environment includes a Master Patient Index, a Clinical Data Repository Database, a Health term Data Dictionary and a Clinical Desktop.
They outline three options for developing clinical systems: