Interface vs. Integrate

[Doug Essner]

Our hospital is in the process of adding/replacing several patient care related systems.  We in the IS department know that an integrated system where a single database stores the data is better than 2 disparate systems (2 databases) that must be interfaced.  My goal is to provide examples where interfacing the Emergency Dept, Pharmacy system, Lab system or Radiology system vs a solution from 1 vendor(database)  is more troublesome (interface related errors that could affect patient care) than the integrated (1 database) system.  Would anyone care to comment? or add to my list?

1. Interfaces stop communicating.

2. A message may have values(data elements) rejected by receiving system.

3. Interfaces may get out-of-sync – (order or result message crosses to system before ADT)

4. Unexplained errors (bugs in system) – system receives message and acknowledges but does not act upon message.

Topic

[Scott Lee]

Interfaces need to be tested when either system is upgraded.

[Chris Brossette]

Hi Doug,

It sounds as though the vendor’s salesman has made a good presentation of the company’s products (like McKesson).  The integration between their different systems is not bad, it just requires testing of the interfaces and continuing monitoring after go-live but the clinical and financial users get the best applications for patient care.  We came from a single vendor/database system to the ‘Best of Breed’ and even though it has been a lot of work to get here, it was the best choice for our hospital and clinicians.

No vote here for a single database…..

If you have questions about integration of McKesson products, feel free to ask.  Have a great week….

Chris Brossette

Team Leader/DB & Integration

MS Baptist Health Systems

Jackson, MS

cbrossette@mbhs.org

[Jim Kosloskey]

Doug,

Actually I favor the ‘best of breed’ approach. Rarely have I seen a single system provide excellent functionality across the entire spectrum. Many modules are simply lacking in total functionality and are there just so that there is a marketable module.

There is a responsibility however when going best of breed to perform due dilligence during the selection process and hold prospective vendor’s feet to the fire regarding providing usable integration which properly utilizes standards.

Unfortunately, in my experience, too often these essential management steps are avoided and the result is a poorly integrated environment for which the concept of ‘best of breed’ and the Integration staff are incorrectly singled out as failure points.

Jim Kosloskey

email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 29+ years Cloverleaf, 59 years IT - old fart.

[Michael Hertel]

I’d like to point out that in a single vendor environment, when the system goes down and out, so does the whole hospital.

Also, I happen to like my job and my paycheck so I’m for Best of Breed.

And by the way, I think Cloverleaf is far and away, the best of it’s breed!

You may want to re-think your goal.  😀

-mh

[Doug Essner]

You guys sure a defensive group!!  Maybe instead of saying in so many words that my goal was to prove that interfacing was bad

[Michael Hertel]

Didn’t mean to sound defensive.

I just added a smiley to my previous reply.

😀  😀  😀  😀  😀  😀  😀  😀  😀  😀

[Daniel Lee]

I know you

[Doug Essner]

I am quite happy to see your comments even if you were venting.   Information/education is key to making good decisions.  Any chance that you

[Author]

Replies