International Perspective Pompidou University Hospital in France: A Component-Based Clinical Information and Electronic Health Record System

  • Patrice Degoulet
  • Lise Marin
  • Pierre Boiron
  • Elisabeth Delbecke
Part of the Health Informatics Series book series (HI)


The creation of the Pompidou University Hospital [or the Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou (HEGP), as it is known in French], in southwest Paris, from the merging of three aging facilities presented an opportunity to conceive and deploy COHERENCE, a brand-new component-based clinical information system (CIS). COHERENCE features generic healthcare-related and generic components. The healthcare-related components include the patient healthcare record, the activity, and the resource scheduler components. Major functions of the CIS were operational when the hospital opened in July 2000. The generic components include a reference manager, a security manager, a document manager, a Corba bus, and various mediation and supervision tools. Three years later, the unique patient record and the provider order entry systems are being used in 100 percent of relevant healthcare units. Seventy-four percent of biological orders and 66 percent of imaging orders are being entered directly by physicians. Sharing by physicians and nurses of the common, multimedia lifelong health record, including online availability of images, is being achieved in 100 percent of the units.


Hospital Information System Order Entry Clinical Information System Electronic Health Record System Enterprise Application Integration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Iakovidis I. Toward personal health record: current situation, obstacles and trends in imple- mentation of electronic healthcare record in Europe. Int J Med Inform 1998; 52: 105–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van de Velde R, Degoulet P. Clinical information systems: a component-based approach. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dick RS, Steen EB, editors. The computerized-based patient record. An essential technology for health care. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McDonald CJ, Tierney WM. Computer-stored medical records. JAMA 1988; 259: 3433–3440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chute CG. Clinical data retrieval and analysis. I’ve seen a case like that before. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1992; 670: 133–140.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Safran C, Chute CG. Exploration and exploitation of clinical databases. Int J Biomed Comput 1995; 39 (1): 151–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Uckert FK, Prokosch H. Implementing security and access control mechanisms for an electronic record. Proc AMIA Symp 2002; 825–829.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuhn KA, Giuse DA. From hospital information systems to health information systems. Methods Inform Med 2001; 40: 275–287.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ross SE, Lin CT. The effects of promoting patient access to medical records: a review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10: 129–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sittig DF, Kuperman GJ, Fiskio J. Evaluating physician satisfaction regarding user interactions with an electronic medical record system. Proc AMIA Symp 1999; 400–404.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gadd CS, Penrod LE. Dichotomy between physicians’ and patient’s attitudes regarding EMR use during outpatient encounters. Proc AMIA Symp 2000; 275–279.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Penrod LE, Gadd CS. Attitudes of academic-based and community-based physicians regarding EMR use during outpatient encounters. Proc AMIA Symp 2001; 528–532.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Doolan DF, Bates DW, James BC. The use of computers for clinical care: a case series of advanced US sites. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10: 94–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dayhoff RE, Kuzmak PM, Kirin G, Frank S. Providing a complete on-line multimedia patient record. Proc AMIA Symp 1999; 241–245.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clayton PD, Narus SP, Huff SM, et al. Building a comprehensive information system from components. The approach at Intermountain Health Care. Methods Inform Med 2003; 42: 1–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Borst F, Appel R, Baud R, Ligier Y, Scherrer JR. Happy birthday DIOGENE: a hospital information system born 20 years ago. Int J Med Inform 1999; 54: 157–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bleich HL, Slack WV. The CCC system in two teaching hospitals: a progress report. Int J Med Inform 1999; 54: 183–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McDonald C, Overhage JM, Tierney WM, et al. The Regenstrief medical record system: a quarter century experience. Int J Med Inform 1999; 54: 225–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bates D, Teich J, Lee J, et al. The impact of computerized order entry on medical error prevention. JAMIA 1999; 6 (4): 313–321.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herzum P, Sims O. Business component factory. New York: Wiley; 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    CEN TC251. Healthcare information system architecture. Part 1 (HISA). Healthcare middleware layer. prENV 12967–1. Brussels: CEN TC251, March 1997. [http://].Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    HL7. Health level seven context management standard. Version 1.4, May 2001. [].Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zahavi R, David S. Linthicum DS. Enterprise application integration with CORBA component and Web-based solutions. New York: Wiley; 1999.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee J, Siau K, Hong S. Enterprise integration with ERP and EAI. Commun ACM 2003; 46 (2): 54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    HL7. Health level seven context management standard. Version 1.4, May 2001. [].Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orfali R, Harkey D, Edwards J. client/server survival guide, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 1999.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Margulies D, McCallie D, Elkowitz A, Ribitzky R. An integrated hospital information system at Children’s Hospital. Proc SCAMC 1990; 699–703.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Degoulet P, Jean FC, Engelmann U, et al. The component-based architecture of the HELIOS medical software engineering environment. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1994; 45 (Suppl): S1 - S11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spahni S, Scherrer JR, Sauquet D, Sottile PA. Towards specialised middleware for healthcare information systems. Int J Med Inform 1999; 53: 193–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van de Velde R. Framework for a clinical information system. Int J Med Inform 2000; 57 (1): 57–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ferrara FM. The standard “Healthcare Information Systems Architecture” and the DHE middleware. Int J Med Inform. 1998; 52 (1–3): 39–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sittig DF, Stead WW. Computer-based physician order entry. JAMIA 1994; 1: 108–123.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ash J, Gorman P, Lavelle M, Lyman J, Fournier L. Investigating physician order entry in the field: lessons learned in a multi-center study. MEDINFO 2001; 1107–1111.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shu K, Boyle D, Spurr C, et al. Comparison of time spent writing orders on paper with computerized physician order entry. MEDINFO 2001; 1207–1211.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tonnesen AS, LeMaistre A, Tucker D. Electronic medical record implementation barriers encountered during implementation. Proc AMIA Symp 1999; 624–626.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weir C, McCarthy C, Gohlinghorst S, Crockett R. Assessing the implementation process. Proc AMIA Symp 2000; 908–912.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrice Degoulet
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lise Marin
    • 3
  • Pierre Boiron
  • Elisabeth Delbecke
  1. 1.Georges Pompidou University Hospital France
  2. 2.Public Health and Medical Informatics DepartmentBroussais Faculty of MedicineParisFrance
  3. 3.Information Systems Program at the Hospital Informatics DepartmentGeorges Pompidou University HospitalFrance

Personalised recommendations