No abstract

Capturing the full potential of these new technologies will require a much more fundamental reorganization of work than just a simple deployment of the technology.

A risk analysis framework was used to examine the implementation barriers that may hamper the successful implementation of interorganizational clinical information systems (ICIS). In terms of study design, an extensive literature review was first performed in order to elaborate a comprehensive model of project risk factors. To test the applicability of the model, we next conducted a longitudinal multiple-case study of two large-scale ICIS demonstration projects carried out in Quebec, Canada. Variations in the levels of several risk dimensions measured throughout the duration of the projects were analyzed to determine their impact on successful implementation. The analysis shows that the proposed framework, composed of five risk dimensions, was very robust, and suitable for conducting a thorough risk analysis. The results also show that there are links between the quality of the risk management and the level of project outcomes. To be successful, it is important that the implementation efforts be distributed proportionally according to the importance of each of the risk factors. Furthermore, because the risks evolve dynamically, there is a need for high responsiveness to emerging implementation problems. Thus, implementation success lies in the ability of the project management team to be aware of and to manage several risk threats simultaneously and coherently since they evolve dynamically through time and interact with one another.

A virtual medical imaging department is an innovative and demanding organizational model, to the extent that the underlying goal is to achieve a continuous and advanced organizational integration of human and physical resources, clinical data, and clienteles. To better understand the kind of benefits offered, we conducted a survey of three groups of users-radiologists, radiological technologists, and medical specialists-working in a five-site virtual organization. We received 127 valid questionnaires, for an overall response rate of 66%. The assessments vary according to the use made of the system. The scores for system quality and the quality of the data produced were markedly higher for intrahospital use (respectively 7.9 and 8.7 out of 10) than for inter-hospital use (5.4 and 7.0). Despite the negative assessments they made of inter-hospital use, users maintained a positive attitude toward some type of virtual organization of medical imaging. Indeed, the score for Overall satisfaction with the system was very high, 8.9 out of 10. Moreover, the scores for Intended future use of the system were very high for both intrahospital use (8.9) and inter-hospital use (8.7). We also found significant differences in perceptions among user groups.