top of page
  1. New Medical Record System

  • Single phrase description + impact: I led the end-to-end design and implementation of a new medical record system in a 500-bed hospital in Rwanda, that increased the quality of care and enabled to hospital to meet accreditations standards.

  • Type of project / project elements:

  • Service systems design

  • Instructional design

  • Equity-centered design

  • Capacity building

  • Steps: Inception to full implementation /evaluation

 

  1. Project overview & problem to be solved

  • Client: CHUK / MOH

  • Date/duration: 18 months, 2015 - 2016

  • Problem to be solved + why important?: Medical record system was outdated: lost or incomplete data making patient care challenging, inconsistent documentation leading to inconsistent practices, time-consuming to document and retrieve data, did not meet requirements for accreditation.  —OR—   Decentralized piecemeal system - resulting in inefficiency and data loss, challenges with accreditation

  • Inconsistent practices - sub-optimized care provision.

  • Goals (match problem): EFFICIENCY - streamline healthcare service delivery; CARE QUALITY - prompt evidence-based care, manage data, get accredited; SUSTAINABILITY

  • Context: 500 bed hospital in resource-constrained (globally exploited/post-colonial) sett

  • Dealbreakers/constraints: it had to be used in all 21 inpatient departments, we had a year to complete it before the the next procurement, local ownership, limited: budget, time/personnel availably from hospital team, technology.

  • Resources: Desire for innovation at all org levels; Committed staff; Agile system

  • My role / team: Project manager, design lead, staff trainer

  • Brief description / steps of the process:

  1. proposal to CEO, with scoping and M+E plan

  2. refinement/agreement from admin leadership + formation of multidisciplinary team

  3. needs assessment

  4. designing/rapid prototyping/usability testing

  5. final consensus

  6. pilot

  7. implement

  8. audit

  1. Discovery

  • Needs assessment / current state / user research —

    • Methodology choices?: participant observation, semi-structured interviews, focus groups / workshops

    • Tools for synthesis or prototyping?: not much bc fast, also untrained, GANTT Chart with dependency mapping - project / launch plan; M+E with file audit.

  • Market research / landscape analysis?: COHSASA, HRH clinicians, MRS in other places

  1. Process: problem-solution pairs:

    • Problem (discovered in research or prototyping): Free-write sections - inconsistent documentation, liable to omitted or irrelevant data - lead to challenges in continuity of care

    • Insight/opportunity: forms could explain what was needed, and even prompt EBP!! And of course leap-frog preparation for accreditation

    • Outlier/inspiration: anesthesia flowsheets were good, others not so much

    • Solution: structure all sections with instructions on how to fill / what to do when possible

    • Alternatives that were disregarded + rationale: to balance specificity with consistency- err on the side of consistency - no SO specialized for each dept. = most forms cross cutting, some w specialization.

    • Problem (discovered in research or prototyping): Bound papers of general forms- any specialized or additional documents were free-floating, often misplaced, etc

    • Insight/opportunity: in reality all files needed to be flexible

    • Outlier/inspiration: best practices in other places

    • Solution: binders

    • Alternatives that were disregarded + rationale: hard decision bc pro and cons… thought about different bound notebooks for each dept, but with consults and transfers this wouldn’t work

  1. Final Product

    • Description: #?? of cross-cutting forms, #?? specialty forms, binders. Weekend meeting with all admin to approve, pending funding.

  1. Implementation

  • Pilot/validation/refinement?: Scope pilot, decision based on testing in all areas, but also w committed dept leadership to make sure it would happen.

  • Implantation prep/management/colab: team of direct providers to become trainers, d and I train the trainers, get shelves, etc. Then final decision to fund itx

  1. Impact:

    • quantitative: Increased score on audit for meeting requirements for COHSASA accrediation

    • Qualitative: report that care is easier

  1. Learnings

    • Unexpected challenges: needing selves etc on units

    • I could have instead: done a more through assessment, prepared for this earlier

    • Unexpected wins: how awesomely dedicated staff were,

    • With more resources we could have: more staff training, or even EMR

    • Next steps: continue to improve, plan to move to EMR

    • Final take-home: ???.

434C0F3E-4E7B-44E4-9CD7-7432BA204973.jpeg

Medical Record System Design

Employer
Location
Timeline

My role
Team

Rwanda Ministry of Health
Kigali, Rwanda

18 months
Project & design lead, staff trainer
Clinical & administrative hospital staff

I led the end-to-end design and implementation of a new medical record system in a 500-bed hospital in Rwanda, that increased the quality of care and enabled to hospital to meet accreditations standards.

1AF392AE-6647-4535-8657-BC7EEDE1019F.jpeg

The healthcare delivery system in Rwanda had grown swiftly in the past he end-to-end design and implementation of a new medical record system in a 500-bed hospital in Rwanda, that increased the quality of care and enabled to hospital to meet accreditations standards.

Project summary

The problem:

  • Medical record system was outdated: lost or incomplete data making patient care challenging, inconsistent documentation leading to inconsistent practices, time-consuming to document and retrieve data, did not meet requirements for accreditation.  —

  • OR—   Decentralized piecemeal system - resulting in inefficiency and data loss, challenges with accreditation

  • Inconsistent practices - sub-optimized care provision.

06994E1E-8507-43D1-9A50-2C610AEEB33E_4_5005_c.jpeg
5D461BFD-600D-4455-B526-619CAD8CE019.jpeg

Context + constraints:

  • it had to be used in all 21 inpatient departments

  • we had a year to complete it before the the next procurement

  • local ownership

  • limited: budget

  • time/personnel availably from hospital team, technology.

Project goals:

  • EFFICIENCY - streamline healthcare service delivery

  • CARE QUALITY - prompt evidence-based care, manage data,

  • Accredidation get accredited;

  • SUSTAINABILITY

Process steps:​

  1. proposal to CEO, scoping, Project plan / M+E plan refinement/agreement from admin leadership + formation of multidisciplinary team

  2. needs assessment

  3. Landscape analysis

  4. designing/rapid prototyping/usability testing

  5. final consensus

  6. pilot

  7. implement

  8. audit

We had less than one month to deliver:  

  • New system where all Virginia residents could sign up for the vaccine 

  • Database & dashboard that consolidated 1.8 million pre-existing records from 35 localities

Solution & impact:

  • Decentralized siloed process for VA residents to register for COVID-19 vaccine, resulting in vaccine delivery challenges and loss of public trust in state gov ;

  • Lack of way that VDH can track who has received vaccine - for equity and also f/u care (#50th in state)

We had less than one month to deliver:  â€‹

AD2D8277-1909-4373-B810-99FE722F7552_edi
E4A21521-B09F-40CF-AF57-A1BAD26266A5.JPEG
FC4DDB3C-DDFA-4D51-A8F6-657C60EDFB6D.JPEG

Wins, losses, learnings:

  • Surprising win: xxxy

  • Unexpected hurdle: xxx

  • With more ______ we would have... xxx. â€‹

  • Most valuable learning: xx

C3C03A90-52CE-441B-867D-359F4EEC39F9_1_105_c.jpeg

1

Project scoping

2

Needs assessment

  1. Process: problem-solution pairs:

    • Problem (discovered in research or prototyping): Free-write sections - inconsistent documentation, liable to omitted or irrelevant data - lead to challenges in continuity of care

    • Insight/opportunity: forms could explain what was needed, and even prompt EBP!! And of course leap-frog preparation for accreditation

    • Outlier/inspiration: anesthesia flowsheets were good, others not so much

    • Solution: structure all sections with instructions on how to fill / what to do when possible

    • Alternatives that were disregarded + rationale: to balance specificity with consistency- err on the side of consistency - no SO specialized for each dept. = most forms cross cutting, some w specialization.

    • Problem (discovered in research or prototyping): Bound papers of general forms- any specialized or additional documents were free-floating, often misplaced, etc

    • Insight/opportunity: in reality all files needed to be flexible

    • Outlier/inspiration: best practices in other places

    • Solution: binders

    • Alternatives that were disregarded + rationale: hard decision bc pro and cons… thought about different bound notebooks for each dept, but with consults and transfers this wouldn’t work

Methodologies:​

  1. participant observation

  2. semi-structured interviews

  3. focus groups / workshops

  4. GANTT Chart with dependency mapping

  5.  project / launch plan;

  6. M+E with file audit.

  7. Market research / landscape analysis: COHSASA, HRH clinicians, MRS in other place

4

Landscape analysis

5

Design & usability testing

Description: #?? of cross-cutting forms, #?? specialty forms, binders. Weekend meeting with all admin to approve, pending funding.

​

Scope pilot, decision based on testing in all areas, but also w committed dept leadership to make sure it would happen.

6

Final product & pilot

7

Full funding & implementation

7

Documentation audit

Impact

  • Implantation prep/management/colab: team of direct providers to become trainers, d and I train the trainers, get shelves, etc. Then final decision to fund it​

  • Impact:

    • quantitative: Increased score on audit for meeting requirements for COHSASA accrediation

    • Qualitative: report that care is easier

Critique & Learnings

FC4DDB3C-DDFA-4D51-A8F6-657C60EDFB6D.JPEG

-

-

-

IMG_0051.JPG
IMG_0067.JPG
870A4A91-8CB7-45B4-BCC5-35B4FCB145EC.jpeg
434C0F3E-4E7B-44E4-9CD7-7432BA204973.jpeg
E6A3C432-0C15-4062-923B-26C53C612866.jpeg
06994E1E-8507-43D1-9A50-2C610AEEB33E_4_5005_c.jpeg
E4A21521-B09F-40CF-AF57-A1BAD26266A5.JPEG
0E0C8C36-E296-4303-90AC-E1C23EADB6DB.jpeg
Image-1 (6).jpeg
3A2A8405-8081-4C95-AA8C-A47E5C7C47EF_1_105_c.jpeg
image (4).jpeg
DE33F8A7-6AA7-49B0-8298-A24E22312837.jpeg
IMG_0078.JPG
IMG_0017.JPG
5D461BFD-600D-4455-B526-619CAD8CE019.jpeg
Informed Consent - Refusal of Care_Page_2.jpg
Informed Consent - Refusal of Care_Page_1.jpg

Nurses explained what they needed to learn

Challenge

With extraordinary capacity growth in Rwanda's largest hospital, the medical record system no longer matched the sophistication of care.

Image-1%20(17)_edited.jpg

A nurse holds a prohibitively time-comsuming patient assessment form.

Approach

Via embedded observation, intercept interviews, and systems mapping, we  identified copious pain points and workarounds.

Image-1 (11).jpeg

Managers discuss interdepartmental documentation challenges.

Innovation

We then created multi-disciplinary teams to explore documentation needs, research best practices, and design a new complete system.

Image-1 (5).jpeg

Providers explore possibilities for new documentation practices.

Deliverables

After a year of development and a robust pilot, we implemented the new record system across all inpatient departments.

Image-1 (15).jpeg

Nurses document patient care during the new system pilot. 

Impact 

Within three months, our audit showed significant improvements - advancing care quality, educational training capacity, and international accreditation readiness.  

Image-1 (2).jpeg

During rounds, providers now have information at their fingertips.

bottom of page