A planning tool for multidisciplinary youth care evaluated: A case study

OBJECTIVES This study aims to gain more insight in whether care programming in health care can be supported by IT and what is needed for successful implementation. We evaluated a case where an organization structured its care processes into care programs and used a planning tool for planning and control of the care programs. The results of this evaluation contribute to existing knowledge about the relation between care processes and IT as well as IT implementation. METHOD We used multiple data sources to support and complete the results. The evaluation of the case took place by means of face-to-face interviews, a document study and analyses of emails. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The care programs and the planning tool were not compatible and did not achieve the intended goals. The professionals failed to appreciate flexibility of the care programs. The implementation of the planning tool failed because of too little user involvement in the implementation. Moreover, care programs were in general not accepted by the professionals. All this resulted in a non-fit between the care programs and the planning tool. We advise for routine processes as care programs to develop a balance between flexibility and standardization. This is a process of trial and error and requires adaptive information technology and user involvement in development and implementation.

[1]  Elske Ammenwerth,et al.  Can evaluation studies benefit from triangulation? A case study , 2003, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[2]  Abdullah S. Al-Mudimigh,et al.  Enterprise resource planning: A taxonomy of critical factors , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  Elske Ammenwerth,et al.  Evaluation of health information systems - problems and challenges , 2003, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[4]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  ERP systems and technological discourse shift: Managing the implementation journey , 2006, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst..

[5]  J Brender,et al.  Cognitive evaluation: how to assess the usability of information technology in healthcare. , 1997, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[6]  A Hasman,et al.  Two patient care information systems in the same hospital: beyond technical aspects. , 2003, Methods of information in medicine.

[7]  Cecil Bozarth,et al.  ERP implementation efforts at three firms: Integrating lessons from the SISP and IT‐enabled change literature , 2006 .

[8]  G. Hofstede.  Management Control of Public and Not-for-Profit Activities , 1981 .

[9]  Hans-Ulrich Prokosch,et al.  Visions and strategies to improve evaluation of health information systems: Reflections and lessons based on the HIS-EVAL workshop in Innsbruck , 2004, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[10]  Aleda V. Roth,et al.  HOSPITAL RESOURCE PLANNING: CONCEPTS, FEASIBILITY, AND FRAMEWORK , 1995 .

[11]  D. K. Donker.  Assessment and evaluation of information technologies in medicine , 1996 .

[12]  Jeremy C. Wyatt,et al.  When and how to evaluate health information systems? , 2003, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[13]  M.J.G. Govers,et al.  Met ERP-systemen op weg naar moderne bureaucratieën? , 2003 .

[14]  Frits van Merode,et al.  GUM and six sigma approaches positioned as deterministic tools in quality target engineering , 2004 .

[15]  Arie Hasman,et al.  Review Paper: Determinants of Success of Inpatient Clinical Information Systems: A Literature Review , 2003, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[16]  Nico Vandaele,et al.  Advanced Resource Planning , 2003 .

[17]  Arie Hasman,et al.  Enterprise resource planning for hospitals , 2004, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[18]  Mohammed Arif,et al.  Enterprise information systems: technology first or process first? , 2005, Bus. Process. Manag. J..