Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some promising areas for IS research in the hospital industry: implications from a case study of operating room scheduling

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Health and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the process of operating room scheduling at a surgery department in a Midwestern hospital. A comprehensive process map was developed to depict the existing scheduling process and enhance understanding of the complexity of hospital operations. Close examination of the process map suggests several obstacles and bottlenecks that impede operation efficiency of the investigated surgery department. The implications for IS research are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aanestad M, Jensen TB. Building nation-wide information infrastructures in healthcare through modular implementation strategies. J Strateg Inf Syst. 2011;20(2):161–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. American Hospital Association. Chartbook: trends affecting hospitals and health systems. 2012. http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/chartbook/index.shtml. Accessed 21 Oct 2012.

  3. Barkhi R. The effects of decision guidance and problem modeling on group decision-making. J Manag Inf Syst. 2002;18(3):259–82.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berenson RA, Ginsburg PB, May JH. Hospital-physician relations: cooperation, competition, or separation? Health Aff. 2007;26(1):w31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beretta S. Unleashing the integration potential of ERP systems: the role of process-based performance measurement systems. Bus Process Manag J. 2002;8(3):254–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carlson G, Greeley H. Is the relationship between your hospital and your medical staff sustainable? J Health Manag. 2010;55(3):158–73.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Caron JR, Jarvenpaa SL, Stoddard DB. Business reengineering at CIGNA corporation: experiences and lessons learned from the first five years. MIS Q. 1994;18(3):233–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chiasson MW, Davidson E. Pushing the contextual envelope: developing and diffusing IS theory for health information. Inf Organ. 2004;14(3):155–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Compeau DR, Higgins CA, Huff S. Social cognitive theory and Individual reactions to computing technology: a longitudinal study. MIS Q. 1999;23(2):145–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Compeau DR, Higgins CA. Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q. 1995;19(2):189–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Deming WE. Out of the crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dennis AR. Information exchange and use in group decision making: you can lead a group to information, but you can’t make it think. MIS Q. 1996;20(4):433–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dennis AR, Hilmer KM, Taylor NJ. Information exchange and use in GSS and verbal group decision making: effects of minority. J Manag Inf Syst. 1998;14(3):61–88.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fichman RG, Kohli R, Krishnan R. The role of information systems in healthcare: current research and future trends. Inf Syst Res. 2011;22(3):419–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Goh JM, Gao G, Agarwal R. Evolving work routines: adaptive routinization of information technology in healthcare. Inf Syst Res. 2011;22(3):565–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Goldsmith J. Hospitals and physicians: not a pretty picture. Health Aff. 2007;26(1):w72–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Goodhue DL, Wybo MD, Kirsch LJ. The impact of data integration on the costs and benefits of information systems. MIS Q. 1992;16(3):293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Grote J, Mango J, Sutaria S. Transforming U.S. hospitals. McKinsey Q. 2007. https://www.mckinseyQ.com/Transforming_US_hospitals_1937. Accessed 21 Oct 2012.

  20. Hasselbring W. Information system integration. Commun ACM. 2000;43(6):32–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. He J, Freeman L. Understanding the formation of general computer self-efficacy. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2010;26(12):225–44.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Holm CE, Burns LR. The future of physician-health system integration. J Health Manag. 2000;45(6):356–8.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ibold K. Ailing hospital industry. Fla Trend. 1999;42(4):26.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jensen TB, Aanestad M. Hospitality and hostility in hospitals: a case study of an EPR adoption among surgeons. Eur J Inf Syst. 2007;16(6):672–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Juran JM. Juran on planning for quality. New York: Free Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Karahanna E, Straub DW. The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease of use. Inf Manag. 1999;35(4):237–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kettinger WJ, Teng JTC, Guha S. Business process change: a study of methodologies, techniques, and tools. MIS Q. 1997;21(1):55–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim BO. Business process reengineering: building a cross-functional information architecture. J Syst Manag. 1994;45(12):30–5.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kolodner RM, Cohn SP, Friedman CP. Health information technology: strategic initiatives, real progress. Health Aff. 2008;27:w391–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Li L, Xu L, Jeng HA, Naik D, Allen T, Frontini M. Creation of environmental health information system for public health service: a pilot study. Inf Sys Front. 2008;10(5):531–42.

  31. Mango PD, Shapiro LA. Hospitals get serious about operations. McKinsey Q. 2001;2001(2):74–85.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Miller RH. Health system integration: a means to an end. Health Aff. 1996;15(2):92–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Muscatello JR, Small MH, Chen IJ. Implementing enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems in small and midsize manufacturing firms. Int J Oper Prod Manag. 2003;23(8):850–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. New Jersey commission on rationalizing health care resources, final report. 2008. http://www.nj.gov/health/rhc/finalreport/index.shtml. Accessed 21 Oct 2012.

  35. Newell S. Special section on healthcare information systems. J Strateg Inf Syst. 2011;20(2):158–60.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Ngai EWT, Poon JKL, Suk FFC, Ng CC. Design of an RFID-based healthcare management system using an information system design theory. Inf Syst Front. 2009;11(4):405–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Oborn E, Barrett M, Davidson E. Unity in diversity: electronic patient record use in multidisciplinary practice. Inf Syst Res. 2011;22(3):547–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ogles BM, Trout SC, Gillespie DK, Penkert KS. Managed care as a platform for cross-system integration. J Behav Health Serv Res. 1998;25(3):252–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Payton FC, Pare G, Le Rouge CM, Reddy M. Health care IT: process, people, patients and interdisciplinary considerations. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2011;12(2/3):i–xiii.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pinsonneault A, Kraemer KL. Middle management downsizing: an empirical investigation of the impact of information technology. Manag Sci. 1997;43(5):659–79.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Raymond L, Uwizeyemungu S. A profile of ERP adoption in manufacturing SMEs. J Enterp Inf Manag. 2007;20(4):487–502.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sasaki H. A computing theory for collaborative and transparent decision making under time constraint. Inf Syst Front. 2011;13(2):207–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Taylor FW. The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper and Brothers; 1911.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Turban E, Liang T, Wu SPJ. A framework for adopting collaboration 2.0 tools for virtual group decision making. Group Decis Negot. 2011;20(2):137–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425–78.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Venkatesh V, Zhang X, Sykes TA. “Doctors do too little technology”: a longitudinal field study of an electronic healthcare system implementation. Inf Syst Res. 2011;22(3):523–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wan TH, Wang BL. Integrated healthcare networks’ performance: a growth curve modeling approach. Health Care Manag Sci. 2003;6(2):117–24.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  48. Wilson EV. Editorial statement: information systems and healthcare department. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2004;13(27):456–8.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Zimmerman RS. Hospital capacity, productivity, and patient safety—it all flows together. Front Health Serv Manag. 2004;20(4):33–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, University of Michigan-Dearborn, Dearborn, USA

    Charu Chandra, Jun He & Zhixin Liu

  2. Department of Mathematical Information Technology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Toni Ruohonen

Authors
  1. Charu Chandra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jun He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhixin Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Toni Ruohonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun He.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chandra, C., He, J., Liu, Z. et al. Some promising areas for IS research in the hospital industry: implications from a case study of operating room scheduling. Health Technol. 3, 65–72 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0042-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0042-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation