1 / 16

Selecting emr system(s)

Dr. Davies O. Kimanga For the Oversight team. Selecting emr system(s). Oversight team composition. NASCOP HIS WHO UNAIDS CDC USAID. Rationale.

lore
Download Presentation

Selecting emr system(s)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dr. Davies O. Kimanga For the Oversight team Selecting emr system(s)

  2. Oversight team composition • NASCOP • HIS • WHO • UNAIDS • CDC • USAID

  3. Rationale • Based on the processes of standardization and review, the objective was to select one or more EMR systems that the Ministry can focus on and implement to larger scale • Due to limited resources, the MoH can only develop support around few select systems • The selected systems shall be upgraded, training around them developed, and support mechanisms established

  4. Criteria for selection • Meeting MOH standards: Cut off for this was 60% • Training: Availability of training materials targeting IT programmers, Managers, Users, linkages with local training institutions • Open Source: Source code available, community of support, local support • Database: Free data base systems that enabled HL 7 messaging preffered

  5. Criteria ….. • Scalability: Ability to scale up to being HER, Linkages to pharmacy, Labs, Financial management systems, primary care/acute care • Available support: Local support for the system • Total cost of Ownership: Arbitrary, data limited on this • Health facilities using the system

  6. System checklist and weights Ranking Parameters Weights MOH Standard- 4 Availability of support-3 Training-3 Open/closed-4 Database-3 Total cost of ownership-4 Health facilities -2 Scalability-4 • Least important • Somewhat Important • Important • Very important Individual Ranking • Least Satisfactory • Somewhat Satisfactory • Satisfactory • Very Satisfactory

  7. Overall Scores

  8. Recommendations • All four systems recommended for implementation • One has full recommendation while others have provisional recommendation • All other systems still being implemented shall continue being implemented but will have to be upgraded to meet the standards

  9. Open MRS • Full recommendation based on the score across the eight parameters Comments • System owners will have to develop a prototype that fully meets the standard and deposit at MOH • Need to improve on its installation process: develop an executable file or turn key for installation • Time lines: Within 3 months

  10. IQ Care • Scored well, Provisional recommendation Comments • Develop a prototype that completely meets the standards and deposit with MOH • Fully meet the open source definitions as defined earlier • Ensure availability of training materials • Timeline: 3 months

  11. C-Pad • Scored fairly: Provisional recommendation Comments • Develop a prototype that completely meets the standards and deposit with MOH • Upgrade back end to be My SQL • Avail prototype and source code • Develop and implement a sustainable approach • Timeline: 6 months

  12. Fun soft • Noted to have been built for financial MX but with a fairly good clinical component • Provisional approval Comments • Upgrade the patient management module to conform to the standards • Consider availing the system to MOH as open source • Build extensive local capacity to support the system

  13. Additional notes • Free technical support available for all of the recommended systems • GOK Sites wanting to install these systems will be supported for installation, infrastructure and technical support by the national EMR partners together with regional implementing partners

  14. All other systems • Developers encouraged to upgrade the systems to meet the standards • Conduct self assessment and request for external assessments • If cannot meet the standards in 6 months, then MOH will strongly recommend migration that will be supported • Minimal technical assistance may be provided upon request

  15. Thank You

  16. Model sites • 30 model sites in the entire country • Will benefit from infrastructure support, technical support and training support Site criteria: • High volume HIV facilities • Geographically: conveniently located to enable other sites to learn from them • No EMR or suboptimal EMR implementation • Preference to GOK systems, but private and Mission can also be included

More Related