Transitioning from a Legacy EHR to a Commercial, Vendor-supplied, EHR

Summary

Objective: Describe the planning, decisions, and implementation results experienced during the large-scale transition from one EHR to another throughout a large academic health system, which occurred simultaneously throughout both in-patient and all ambulatory settings

Methods: Review of internal decision-making documents, interviews with key participants, and data from conversion software

Results: Over 7,000 unique users caring for a population of more than 1.2 million patients in both inpatient and outpatient venues and distributed across two states were successfully transitioned to a new EHR simultaneously. Challenges in data conversion were encountered resulting in more work for end-users than desired or anticipated. Users continued to access older information (principally schedules) in the legacy EHR one year later

Conclusion: Data conversion from one EHR to another can be unsuccessful due to differences in how EHR’s structure data obtained from underlying feeder applications or databases. Abstraction of only the pertinent clinical content is difficult in the context of transitioning to a new EHR. Clinicians require facile access to legacy content that can be achieved by implanting CCOW compliant solutions.

Citation: Gettinger A, Csatari A. Transitioning from a legacy EHR to a commercial, vendor-supplied, EHR. Appl Clin Inf 2012; 3: 367–376

http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2012-04-R-0014

Keywords

Electronic Health Record (EHR) - enterprise conversion - legacy systems - CCOW - medical record conversion

• References

• 1 Yoon-Flannery K, Zandieh SO, Kuperman GJ, Langsam DJ, Hyman D, Kaushal R. A qualitative analysis of an electronic health record (EHR) implementation in an academic ambulatory setting. Informatics in Primary Care 2008; 16: 277-284.
• 2 Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E. et al. Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical Care. Ann Int Med. 2006; 144 (10) 742-752.
• 3 McAlearney AS, Robbins J, Hirsch A, Jorina M, Harrop JP. Perceived efficiency impacts following electronic health record implementation: An exploratory study of an urban community health center network. Int J Med Inform. 2010; 79 (12) 807-816.
• 4 Zandeith SO, Yoon-Flannery K, Kuperman G, Langsam D, Hyman D, Kaushal R. Challenges to EHR Implementation in Electronic-Versus-Paper-based Office Practices. J Gen Inter Med. 2008; 23 (Suppl. 06) 755-761.
• 5 Sittig DF, Wright A, Meltzer S, Simonaitis L, Evans RS, Nichol WP. et al. Comparison of clinical knowledge management capabilities of commercially-available and leading internally-developed electronic health records. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011; 11: 13.
• 6 Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The “Meaningful Use” Regulation for Electronic Health Records. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363 (Suppl. 06) 501-504.
• 7 Abramson EL, Malhotra S, Fischer K, Edwards A, Pfoh ER, Osorio SN. et al. Transitioning Between Electronic Health Records: Effects on Ambulatory Prescribing Safety. J Gen Intern Med. 2011; 26 (Suppl. 08) 868-874.
• 8 Health Information Technology: Initial Set of Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology.. Final Rule. Federal Register. 2010 Jul 28 75 (144) 44589-654. PubMed PMID: 20677416.
• 9 Chen R, Klein GO, Sundvall E, Karlsson D, Ahlfeldt H. Archetype-based conversion of EHR content models: pilot experience with a regional EHR system. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009; 9: 33.