Healing Hospital North Shore, IL Vendor Selection for an Adverse Events Information System Imran Khan Project Manager Steven Stanford Chief Information Officer Lemuel Dizon Director of Patient Safety & Adverse Events MED INF Technology Acquisition and Assessment

Audience Assumption for Healing Hospital RoleNameResponsibilities Board of DirectorsKaren, Angela, JaneenChange Control, patient outcomes, hospital reputation Quality Assurance and Compliance Himanshu ChavdaMeasure Success and making sure CMS compliant. Director of Patient Safety and Adverse Clinical Events Lemuel DizonReport adverse events and hospital acquired infections Project ManagerImran Khan Drives project plan. Status updates and issue escalation CIOSteven StanfordIntegrated with existing systems. Interoperability Chief Financial OfficerBelita Smith Assess and report financial impact, give direction, budget approval Vice President of Operations Donald HammerProductivity, utilization of hospital Director of Research & Development Jun Wang Research medical advancements in preventing infections and adverse clinical events

Outline 1.Background & Objectives 2.Preliminary Screening 3.Vendor Selection 4.Preferred 2 Vendors 5.Vendor Response Analysis 6.Price Comparison 7.Acceptance Testing 8.Finalist Vendor

Goals Evaluate Develop Criteria Rationalize

Background & Objectives Background: New CMS Policy being implemented Hospital experiencing adverse clinical events Objectives: Patient Safety Hospital Reputation Financial Impact Solution: Need Adverse Events Information System ASAP

Preliminary Vendor Screening Research through organizations such as: Vendor Websites:

Vendor Selection VendorVerdictComments Eliminated History of integration issues with Cerner EMR Preferred High Quality Project Plan; Quick response time for reporting modules Eliminated Found hidden costs associated with interfaces. No search feature in reports Preferred Solid customer support; Enterprise Commitment; Faster Delivery; High Quality interface services No Bid No integration with Cerner EMR. Declined to respond

Preferred 2 Vendors GE Healthcare McKesson Solid customer support Enterprise Commitment Faster Delivery High Quality interface services High Quality Project Plan Quick response time for reporting modules Excellent Demo

Vendor Response Analysis GE HealthcareMcKesson High compliance factor on reporting modules Interfacing with the Cerner EMR Clear representation on positive clinical and financial ROI User Friendly Meets response time of data retrieval Coded data entry support regulatory coding compliance Potential for added cost not foreseen Lack of clinical influence in the design process

Component GE HealthcareScore McKessonScore Phase 1 Criteria Evaluation Scored a total of 20 Scored highest in technical design and operational requirements –Scored low on cost & pricing 2 Scored a total of 18 Scored highest in experience –Scored low on report generation tools 2 Paired Comparison Analysis Benefits Drawbacks Highlights integration process and interfacing w/ current EMR platform. Meets reporting module needs. Higher cost Highlights response time with alert/messaging system. Will not meet minimal bandwidth required. Clinical influence less integrated Vendor Demo Feedback Response More easy to use and less training required. More enthusiasm showed by nursing than physicians. 3 Able to clearly identify at risk patient. Had more separate log-ins than accepted. More popular with the physicians. 2 Vendor Qualification Financial stability; Extensive health IT experience with major clients 2 Extensive experience in EMR integration; Solid health IT corporation 2 Cumulative ScoreMeets most clinical and system requirements 10Meets some clinical and system requirements 8

Price Comparison SUMMARY OF COSTS ItemOne TimeAnnual Maintenance Five Year Total Cost Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5 Software 100,00010, ,000 Integration $85,500 Other Initial Total Costs$210,000$18,100 $300,500 ItemOne TimeAnnual Maintenance Five Year Total Cost Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5 Software 80,00012, ,000 Integration 39,0007,020 $74,100 Other Initial 60, Total Costs$179,500$19,020 $274,600 SUMMARY OF COSTS

Acceptance Testing System Testing Integration Testing (end-to-end) User Acceptance Testing Pilot Go-Live

Finalist Vendor – GE Healthcare Financial viability and long-term stability Interoperability strategy Project Management Institute (PMI) methodology Total cost of ownership: ▫No hidden costs ▫Minimal involvement of Hospital IS Staff and Internal costs Real-time alerts and messaging Timeliness 24/7 customer support

Summary Centricity Adverse Events Reporter will: -Provide crucial information on current events -Allow our organization to take necessary steps and continually improve -Help improve patient outcomes -Reduce medical errors and lawsuits -Keep us competitive with other hospitals

What’s Next? Date to be CompletedMilestone 28 April 2009 by 5:00 PM CSTRFP Issued 01 May 2009 by 5:00 PM CSTVendor Questions and Clarification Requests Due 05 May 2009 by 5:00 PM CSTCompleted Response to RFP Due 11 May 2009 by 5:00 PM CST*Vendor Demonstrations 11 May 2009 by 5:00 PM CST*Site Visits (virtual site visits will be considered) 18 May 2009 by 5:00 PM CST*Vendor of Choice Awarded 4 June 2009 by 5:00 PM CSTContract Signed 8 June 2009 by 5:00 PM CSTProject Kick-Off 4 September 2009 by 5:00 PM CSTGo-Live Implementation

Questions?