Evaluating Clinical Workflows Webcast
We will be reviewing questions to ask during current-state analysis to allow for the design of the best clinical workflows prior to Go-Live, as well as when evaluating the redesign of problematic workflows. Take advantage of this OPEN session to share your personal workflow challenges, discuss potential solutions and get some guidance on what questions to ask to help design an improved workflow for your users.
Originally aired: Friday, February 1, 2013 Presenters: Christy Erickson and Sue D'Agostino
Q. What do the presenters think is the best way to select a super user, and what criteria should be used to select one?
A. Super users should be an end user who has the personality to work well with other team mates as well as someone who is very comfortable with the TWEHR and enjoys sharing their knowledge with others. Often this may be a department manager or lead position however organizations should consider end users who are saavy in the TWEHR who can support their cohorts and identify with the TWEHR navigational challenges. Knowing clinic flow, both front and back, is also an important part of choosing a super user.
Q. If you already have a super user that is a problem on a variety of levels, how would you go about trying to not utilize them?
A.There may be times when a Super User has been selected that is not the “best fit” and needs to be replaced or removed from the project. This can be quite the dilemma for an IS project team. Consider discussing with the project team leader or their manager directly. Often times a good solution is to utilize them as a Super User tester in your implementation versus utilizing them to support other users, this grants them a role using their skill set while removing them from the direct super user support structure.
Q. When we first implemented we didn't really understand tasking and since that time most of our original IS team is no longer around so we don't currently know if there was a "good reason" to why things were done the way they were. We know today users in general are frustrated with tasking , maintenance of tasking the way it was set up is difficult, and we have personal task views as well- what would be some of your recommendations on how we would begin to tackle this now in our organization if we wanted a major overhaul?
A. The first suggestion is to actually meet with the end users who are currently working tasking to find out all the different tasks that are performed today in the clinic. Consider whether the change would be to move from personal or Enterprise views to Teams views and then before rolling out… go through each workflow after a pilot build to ensure that no task is missing or goes into a “hole” by validating each role based workflow. A critical step to re-structuring tasking is to ensure that proper training of all end users is covered since it could impact any level of user in who has to perform or receive a certain task. Practice with actual end users simulating “real time” tasking documentation to ensure that no task is missed. Extracting each users task views and reviewing with them (or a representative from each role) can also help determine if the task views they currently have are used or redundant. A user could have a dozen different task views and only use 5 or 6 of them.
Q. Results verification seems to constantly require re-training to our providers and is often the area our providers complain about the most- any suggestions on best practices or tips you have given other clients?
A. Initial go live is best to standardize to allow time for the support team to adapt to the variety of result verification methods. Recommend after 60- 90 days to meet with each provider (this may be a challenge for larger organizations) and review the workflow on an individual level and tailor personal preferences to each provider with specific documentation as this will increase results verification workflow per provider. Being aware of any 'special' workflows for verifying results is also helpful. For example, a provider who cares for a large Vietnamese population that do not speak English, may need more tweaking than what a standard Results Verification workflow can offer.