Information Technology Infrastructure, Management, and Implementation: The Rise of the Emergent Clinical Information System and the Chief Medical Information Officer



The use of information technology will continue to play a large role in improving the quality of care, controlling costs, and boosting efficiency in all industries. Health Information Technology (HIT) is being sought as one of the key tactics to streamline the process of providing healthcare to improve quality and harness costs. It is believed that HIT will lead to a more cost-efficient healthcare system than the current one. Surprisingly, there is no agreed definition of HIT in academic literature or government documentation. HIT refers to a broad base of information technologies used in healthcare from robotics surgery to chronic disease home monitoring devices. However, there is a consensus on the purpose of HIT as the use of computers for the management of information in order to ensure that it is available to the right person at the right time and place. HIT is the basis for a more patient-centered and evidence-based medicine with the real-time availability of high-quality information and the potential to perform broad-scale analytics.

Despite the various interpretations of the scope of HIT, all healthcare stakeholders agree that it is the premise on which a twenty-first-century healthcare system must be based. Key challenges remain, including: Vendors don’t have the ability to introduce it into old technologies; Vendors don’t have the financial incentive because their customers aren’t asking for it; Institutional solutions architecture also know as Clinical Enterprise Resource Panning systems (CERP) are not flexible enough to satisfy local needs both for initial deliverables and subsequent adaptations. Unfortunately, coalface clinicians have rarely more than token participation in the selection process of HIT. The health organization has historically had a propensity for installing CERP systems as a strategy for serving the data collection and management functions of the whole organization. The CERP methodology has often been touted as a whole of organization solution without accounting for variable contexts within the organization. This has led to CERP solutions that lack adaptability being imposed on clinicians at the coalface of care with conviction from the administration that it would solve data collection and management problems, but unwittingly worsening their productivity. Adaptability is to be understood here as the ability of a HIT system to be adapted efficiently and quickly to change clinical circumstances. An adaptive system is therefore an open system that is able to adjust readily and inexpensively its behavior according to changes in its environment or in parts of the system itself.

The Emergent Clinical Information System (ECIS) is an adaptive system that is proffered herein as an alternative paradigm and architecture that supports user-controlled design and rapid development and immediate adaptability. Its technical implementation is described and assessed through a case study of building and assessing an emergency department information system (denoted NEDIMS). The multi-best-of-breed system characteristics of the ECIS architecture points to separating the roles of clinical service information systems and clinical care information systems, and a repurposing of EMR solutions to that of a clinical data warehouse with ECIS acting as their service agent for clinical care departments that are patient-facing.

Although many experts tout the perceived benefits of HIT, formal evaluations and evidence regarding its successful implementation are generally lacking. Proponents often do not understand the conditions that exist where innovative HIT has worked, nor are they aware of the perverse financial incentives that discourage healthcare providers from adopting such technologies. Also missing is an honest discussion of experiences with actual HIT systems and the problems engendered by poorly designed systems. There has also been little discussion of the potential problems that might arise if the technology is imposed from the top down. The ECIS architecture presented in this chapter demonstrates that a minimum of 40 % improvement in clinical efficiency is attainable by the ECIS architecture and implementation.


Information technology Clinical information systems Enterprise wide systems Intra-operability Patient safety Implementation 


  1. 1.
    Patrick JD, Ieraci S. Good HIT and bad HIT. Med J Aust. 2013;198(4):205. doi: 10.5694/mja12.11350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    AMIA Implementation List is a discussion group of many of the leading Health Informatics specialists. Almost on a weekly basis the difficulties of using CERP systems is discussed.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rodríguez B, Moiduddin A, Ketchel A, Mohr J, Williams J, Benz J, Gaylin D, Fitzpatrick M, Barach P. EHR final report on case studies and state-wide IT survey analysis. Report submitted to the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), 29 June 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patrick J. The validity of personal experiences in evaluating HIT. Appl Clin Inform. 2010;1(4):462–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barach P. Final report on the recommendations for implementation of the Florida Patient Safety Corporation, Florida Safety Network, 29 June 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Andresen K, Gronau N. An approach to increase adaptability in CERP systems. In: Managing modern organizations with information technology: Proceedings of the 2005 Information Resources Management Association international conference, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conrad M. Statistical and hierarchical aspects of biological organization. In: Waddington CH, editor. Towards a theoretical biology, vol. 4. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 1972. p. 189–220.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barach P. An organizational social technical review of the CTI standards recall process at NEHTA, National E Health Transition Authority, April 2012.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Staggers N, Xiao Y, Chapman L. Debunking health IT usability myths. Appl Clin Inform. 2013;4(2):241–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ash JS, Sittig DF, Dykstra R, Campbell E, Guappone K. The unintended consequences of computerized provider order entry: findings from a mixed methods exploration. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78:S69–76. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.07.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karsh BT, Weinger MB, Abbott PA, Wears RL. Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;6:617–23. doi: 10.1136/jamia.2010.005637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koch S, Westenskow D, Weir C, Agutter J, Haar M, Gorges M, Liu D, Staggers N. ICU nurses’ evaluations of integrated information integration in displays for ICU nurses on user satisfaction and perceived mental workload. Pisa, Italy: Medical Informatics Europe; 2012.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, Abaluck B, Localio AR, Kimmel SE, Strom BL. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA. 2005;10:1197–203. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koppel R, Wetterneck T, Telles JL, Karsh BT. Workarounds to barcode medication administration systems: their occurrences, causes, and threats to patient safety. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;4:408–23. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barach P. Human factors and their impact on patient and staff outcomes. In: 11th International conference on rapid response systems and medical emergency teams, 2014.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mohr J, Barach P. The role of microsystems. In: Carayon P, editor. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in health care and patient safety, handbook of human factors and ergonomics in health care and patient safety. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 2006. p. 95–107.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barach P, Chiong LW. Impact of electronic medical records on the clinical practice of medicine. The College Mirror, College of Family Physicians, Singapore 2012; 38:16–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barach P, Phelps G. Clinical sensemaking: a systematic approach to reduce the impact of normalised deviance in the medical profession. J R Soc Med. 2013;106(10):387–90. doi: 10.1177/0141076813505045.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jensen PF, Barach P. The role of human factors in the intensive care unit. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(2):147–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barach P. The impact of the patient safety movement on clinical care. Adv Anesth. 2003;21:51–80.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johnson J, Barach P. Quality improvement methods to study and improve the process and outcomes of pediatric cardiac surgery. Prog Pediatr Cardiol. 2011;32:147–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    National E health Technology Agency, NEHTA. Delivery quality assurance, SMS, management and technology, April 2012.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barach P, Cosman P. Teams, team training, and the role of simulation. In: Barach P, Jacobs J, Laussen P, Lipshultz S, editors. Outcomes analysis, quality improvement, and patient safety for pediatric and congenital cardiac disease. New York: Springer Books; 2014. ISBN 978-1-4471-4618-6.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adapted from Carmen Lawrence’s essay “The memory ladder: learning from the past, living with doubt”, published in Griffith Review 51: Fixing the System, edited by Julianne Schultz and Anne Tiernan.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Patrick J, Budd P. Ockham’s razor of design. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM international health informatics symposium, Washington DC, Nov 2010.
  26. 26.
    Patrick J, Besiso A. Comparative appraisal of Nepean Emergency Department Information Management System (NEDIMS) versus a clinical ERP (CERP). White paper, June 2014, iCIMS. Accessed 6 June 2016.
  27. 27.
    Bishop R, Patrick J, Besiso A. Efficiency achievements from a user-developed real-time modifiable clinical information system. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;65(2): 133–42.e5. doi:  10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.05.032.
  28. 28.
    Wears RL. Health information technology and victory. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;65(2):143–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Phelps G, Barach P. Why the safety and quality movement has been slow to improve care? Int J Clin Pract. 2014;68(8):932–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Innovative Clinical Information Management Systems (iCIMS) Pty Ltd., International Business CentreSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Clinical Professor, Children’s Cardiomyopathy Foundation and Kyle John Rymiszewski Research ScholarChildren’s Hospital of Michigan, Wayne State University School of MedicineDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations