Phase II EHR implementation

EHR implementation Phase II

Step 2

In the second step of electronic health record implementation, which is system acquisition, there are various factors that need to be taken into consideration. The first element is request for information (RFI). RFI may be described as a tool used by vendors to gather information about a product they would want to purchase from a pool of vendors. Chu, Rong, & Zheng (2020) define RFI as standard process used by customers, in our case a hospital, to acquire information about the abilities of different suppliers of EHR systems. A request for proposal on the other hand RFP may be described as a document used by consumers to ask vendors to submit a proposal on how their software may be of benefit to the enterprise. In this case, an RFP may be used by a hospital or health institution to ask EHR vendors to submit a proposal showing the reason they should assist with upgrading the current system at the hospital. The difference between FRI and RFP revolves around the role of the vendor. In this case, an RFI could be sent before an RFP. The advantage of RFI is that it works both ways and it can enable vendors to also evaluate potential buyers (Langer, 2016). In our case, both and RFI and RFP were documented and sent by 26th August 2021.

Selecting an EHR system for a healthcare institution is a challenging process and one needs key insight on the needs of the healthcare intuition. There is no doubt that the EHR systems have boosted the medical industry and have resulted to a shift in demand for particular products and services in healthcare centers. Data from the national center for health statistics shows that the adaptation rate for EHR systems is 85.9% in the United States (Guo, He, Zhang, & Walton, 2012). Furthermore, the US electrical health records system is worth $ 11 billion (Guo, He, Zhang, & Walton, 2012). The companies with the largest share in the US medical health record industry include Cerner Corporation, Epic Systems and Allscripts Solutions. Before selecting the preferred EHR vendor, it is important to establish various facts. One of the goals that needs to be addressed is the reason for implementing EHR in the health institution. The second factor to consider is the number of patients that the EHR system will be accommodating from time to time (Wright, 2014). The compatibility of the EHR system needs to be established before it is implemented. We may also need to consider whether users may need to access it in their phones or tablets. All the four questions will be the major guidelines on whether or not to choose an off shelf or a system in-built EHR system.

One of the major reasons for the implementation of EHR is to assist in supporting physician and patient interaction with the purpose of promoting patient experience. I believe that any EHR system is good enough to serve any enterprise. In this case, however, we will choose an EHR in-built system. This is because it can be tailored to the practice and hence give more advantages such as cutting down on costs and improve adoption levels. Using an inbuilt system means that physicians get to adopt the system in their phones and tablets and are hence able to interact with their patients at a personal level. Physicians will also be able to track their patient’s well-being effectively and never lose touch. The adoption of an in built EHR system will become easier compared to an off-shelf system. An in built EHR can be improved later in the future when trends change and IT specialists can be outsourced to train practitioners in the health institution. The disadvantage of the off shelf EHR system is its standard nature and its inability to be adapted in some formats. This may be costly for a healthcare institution.

As earlier suggested, there are various EHR vendors and as expected, it is important to ensure that the vendor is able to provide elements that meet the needs of the healthcare system. Our vendor of choice is Cerner Corporation. Cerner is considered the second largest health IT vendor in the United States. The organization produces and sells clinical applications for hospitals, clinics and for primary care. From the RFI and RFPs sent, Cerner Corporation is the best fit for the implementation of the healthcare institution EHR system. Cerner Corporation has a clearly stated commitment to provide implementation support for the inbuilt EHR system. The organization also promises to work with employees and encourage them to maintain the best practices as the system is being adopted in the healthcare institution. Cerner Corporation also provides interoperability solutions which assists health practitioners to have health information and data at their fingertips.

The contract with Cerner Corporation is made up of simple rules and guidelines. First, Cerner will assist in building EHR system in the institution. The corporation will also help in implementation engagements. The cost of building and implementing the EHR system by Cerner is less costly compared to other firms such as Athenahealth and Allscripts. The contract between the health care institution and Cerner will be first to build the EHR system for the firm. The second agreement will be that the institution will not pay for any maintenance and repair before the need arises. The contract will also establish that Cerner Corporation conducts training to staff whenever they update the systems. Contract negotiation has begun and is scheduled to end on 31st September.