The proliferation and expansion of EHRs is continuing to drive device selections, upgrades and replacements. With fast-paced implementations, it’s crucial to be aware of situations where IT may arbitrarily limit or pre-select form factors to “save time” and lower device ratios with the intention of “fiscal responsibility”. 

Without proper education, clinicians may select devices like consumer products, not rugged clinical tools used in evolving workflows they may not anticipate.  Both IT and clinicians risk incorporating inappropriate device criteria and priorities if requirements are based solely on current workflows and system use. 

In our experience, there are three big “if’s” to be aware of:

• If processes are still paper-based, without specific guidance users will consider current documentation approaches in selecting devices.  
• If devices are already in use, evaluations frequently focus on fixing problems and addressing workarounds of existing solutions, rather than envisioning future workflows and determining new device needs.
• And if “vendor fairs” are not preceded by process redesign and users aren’t well informed regarding future state needs, the eventual decisions that are made are less likely to produce the level of engagement and adoption necessary for the initiative to be successful. 

It’s not always an issue of investing greater time or resources; the key here is to follow the proper sequence in the selection process to ensure the proper consideration for your long-term objectives.