Evaluating Pharmacy Information Systems: KLAS Report Provides Guidance

June 2005 - Vol.2 No. 4
Download Share Save

A HOSPITAL’S PHARMACY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PIS) IS VITAL TO CLOSED-loop medication administration and can lead to the assurance of the “five rights”—right patient, right medication, right dose, right time, and right route. The pharmacy information systems available today offer a broad and often-complex range of functionalities, including order entry, inventory and formulary management, procurement management, integration with automated distribution and dispensing equipment, and record-keeping and auditing functions, among others. Each of these factors needs to be closely evaluated before a purchase is made. For those who have a PIS already in place, the functionalities of the existing system should be regularly taken into consideration in an effort to measure its effectiveness.
In a report released in November 2004, “Comprehensive Pharmacy Information Systems Study,” KLAS, a research and consulting firm specializing in monitoring and reporting the performance of health care information technology, provides information to assist health care providers in the evaluation of many of the pharmacy information systems available in today’s marketplace. Evaluating pharmacy vendors/products installed in larger hospitals (200 beds or more) and smaller hospitals (fewer than 200 beds), KLAS utilized a two-fold process to collect the data for this report:

  • Collection of direct vendor/product performance evaluations in 40 performance areas
  • In-depth interviews with departmental directors to establish specific strengths, weaknesses, and future expectations of the products and vendors

In the large hospital group, the following vendors/products were evaluated: Cerner Millenium PharmNet, GE Centricity Pharmacy, McKesson Horizon Meds Manager, Mediware WORx, and Siemens Pharmacy. For the small hospital group, included for comparison were CCA CyberMed, McKesson Horizon Meds Manager, and QuadraMed Pharmacy. An addendum features four large (Meta MetaCare, Misys Pharmacy IMM, PCSI Rx/3000, and QuadraMed Pharmacy) and eight small (Cerner Millenium PharmNet, Eclipsys Pharmacy, Epic Rx, Mediware WORx, Meta MetaWare, PCSI Rx/3000, and Siemens Pharmacy) vendor products that have not yet met the statistical confidence with a minimum number of surveys to qualify for comparison in the main report. These products should, however, be considered in any diligent PIS comparison you undertake for your facility.

Report Findings
Health care organizations have clearly placed a significant emphasis on increasing patient safety, reducing medication errors, and improving communication between pharmacy and nursing, and their expectations of pharmacy’s role in those initiatives have also intensified. Perhaps that is why PIS users appear to want what KLAS calls “an increased level of functionality, integration, and interoperability” in those systems “to effect CPOE (computerized physician order entry), closedloop medication administration, and other demands.” With this context in mind, consider the chart at right, which illustrates the overall PIS vendor rankings from the study.

While the overall scores of each vendor are instructive, further insight into both vendor and industry delivery capabilities can be derived from measuring the specific strengths of particular vendors. Users from large facilities ranked “enterprise commitment to technology” as Cerner’s greatest strength and “quality of implementation staff” as GE’s. Siemens’ “system response times” garnered the company’s highest praise, McKesson scored highest on “implementation within budget/cost,” and MediWare received its best marks for “technology easy to implement and support” and “implementation within budget/cost.” In the small facility group, all of the vendors received their highest marks for “implementation within budget/cost.” The report also notes that the large facility vendors scored higher in “interfacing/integration,” “sales/contracting,” and “future outlook,” while the small facility vendors were better ranked in “implementation/training,” “relationships,” and “ROI/cost.”

Candid User Commentary

Comments derived from the in-depth interviews KLAS conducted with survey respondents provide some of the most informative material found in the report. Providing opinions in nine relevant categories— implementation and training; support and documentation; functionality and upgrades; technology; interfacing and integration; relationship; sales and contracting; ROI/costs; and future outlook—the PIS users surveyed figuratively open the door to their facilities and offer a direct and more personalized product review than the one obtained by reading numerical data alone.

Cerner Millenium PharmNet received significant positive commentary from large clients in the areas of interfacing and integration and future outlook. On the topic of integration, one PharmNet user states, “The system is integrated with lab and other Cerner software products, which makes the overall performance and availability of data extremely efficient. The integration between lab, pharmacy, and nursing has significantly improved the quality of health care...our patients receive.” In terms of ROI, one McKesson Horizon Meds Manager user noted “increased productivity” since going live with the system. Referred to as a “proactive vendor” by one large hospital client, GE ranked well in terms of their customer relationships, with another client remarking, “The cooperation we have received from GE has been exceptional.” Siemens Pharmacy was much lauded in the area of implementation and training; one client commented, “Siemens had a very professional trainer that knew the system extremely well and was able to communicate that knowledge to us through very excellent training sessions. As a result, we had a very smooth go-live.” Mediware’s technology was praised for its “open architecture,” which “allows for greater flexibility and some customization.”

In the small facility group, users commented on the vendors and products in the same nine categories. With regards to future outlook, McKesson received high marks for the company’s ability to “look into the future and know what the system needs.” Users appreciated QuadraMed’s implementation and training programs. One user “enjoyed a very professional level of training, because we were trained by a pharmacist, who understood our environment,” and another user noted that because QuadraMed Pharmacy is “very intuitive... it is very easy for me to teach new pharmacists how to use the system.” With high satisfaction in the area of ROI/cost, CCA “avoids nickel-and-diming us, and they are generally very reasonable with their pricing.”

Why Vendors Are Typically Selected
Larger hospitals elaborated upon their reasons for choosing a particular PIS vendor, providing further depth to each vendor’s profile. For instance, GE Centricity Pharmacy was most often (88%) chosen for its functionality, as was Mediware WORx (55%). Users looking for single vendor integration chose Siemens Pharmacy (77%), Cerner Millenium PharmNet (68%), and McKesson Horizon Meds Manager (56%).

In Conclusion
All health care IT purchases should be considered carefully, and in its reports, KLAS provides guidance and useful methods for evaluating the products being considered for purchase, as well the products already in use at your facility. This particular KLAS report provides multiple metrics across which to evaluate PIS vendors and products, and as the multi-layered data in this report reminds us, it is important to remember that each vendor possesses specific strengths, and that each health care organization has varied needs. While making a PIS purchase, consider how the abilities of various vendors and products will align with your organization’s initiatives in the areas of patient safety, technological advancement, and increased efficiency.

Login

Like what you've read? Please log in or create a free account to enjoy more of what www.pppmag.com has to offer.

Current Issue