ONLINE DESIGN DECISION MANAGEMENT

• US 20100179823A1
• Filed: 02/20/2009
• Published: 07/15/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 01/09/2009
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Cerner Innovation, Inc. (Oracle Corporation)
• Original Assignee: Cerner Innovation, Inc. (Oracle Corporation)
• Inventors: ARNOLD, BRADLEY W., CARTER, BRIAN R., HOURIGAN, MICHAEL, MILLER, TROY J.
• Application Number:
  US12/390,122
• Publication Number:
  US 20100179823A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/2
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G16H 40/20 for the management or administration of healthcare resources or facilities, e.g. managing hospital staff or surgery rooms

Abstract

Methods, computer-readable media, and systems provide design decision management (DDM) to manage the various design decisions made by a client healthcare provider during the design of a healthcare management system by a solution-provider company. A DDM system provides a user interface and allows a user to access data from design decision databases, analyze accessed data, and conduct design review of client design decisions. Design review is initiated when a client design decision conflicts with a company-recommended design decision. The design review process determines if the conflicting client design decision should be approved and implemented or if the company-recommended design decision should be implemented.

Claims

1. A method for reviewing design decisions made in the implementation of a healthcare management system, comprising:

receiving notification that a client has made a design decision that conflicts with a company-recommended design decision;

receiving notification that review of the design decision has begun;

determining if review is needed;

upon determining that review is not needed, accepting the design decision as a design exception; and

upon determining that review is needed;

conducting review of the design decision,

determining if the design exception is approved,

upon determining that the design exception is not approved, updating the design decision back to the company-recommended design decision, and

upon determining that the design exception is approved, accepting the design exception.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving notification that review of the design decision has begun comprises a company responsible party receiving an email or electronic task indicating review has begun and review responsibility has been assigned.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein determining if review is needed comprises determining whether the company-recommended design decision is based on patient safety concerns or financial concerns.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the design decision is stored in a design decision database accessible over a network through an online design decision management system.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the online design decision management system is accessible to both client responsible parties and company responsible parties.

6. The method of claim 4, wherein the online design decision management system presents the status of design decisions through status parameters.

7. The method of claim 1, further comprising a client responsible party approving the design exception before the design exception is accepted.

8. One or more computer-readable media having computer-useable instructions embodied thereon for performing a method for reviewing design decisions made in the implementation of a healthcare management system, comprising:

receiving notification that a client has made a design decision that conflicts with a company-recommended design decision;

receiving notification that review of the design decision has begun;

determining if review is needed;

upon determining that review is not needed;

setting a status parameter to reflect that a design exception is approved, and

accepting the design exception; and

upon determining that review is needed;

setting a status parameter to reflect that design decision review is requested,

conducting review of the design decision,

determining if the design exception is approved,

upon determining that the design exception is approved;

receiving client responsible party approval, and

accepting the design exception,

upon determining that the design exception is not approved;

setting a status parameter to reflect that the design exception is refused, and

updating the design decision to reflect the company-recommended design decision.

9. The computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein receiving notification that a client has made a design decision that conflicts with a company-recommended design decision comprises changing a status parameter in an online design decision management system

10. The computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein the design decision is stored in a design decision database accessible over a network through the online design decision management system.

11. The computer-readable media of claim 10, wherein the online design decision management system is accessible to both client responsible parties and company responsible parties.

12. The computer-readable media of claim 10, wherein status parameters are updated over a network connection through the design decision management system.

13. The computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein conducting review of the design decision comprises scheduling and conducting a review meeting.

14. The computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein receiving client responsible party approval comprises setting a status parameter to reflect that the design exception is pending client signoff and receiving a change of the status parameter from a client responsible party indicating the design exception is approved.

15. The computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein receiving notification that review of the design decision has begun comprises a company responsible party receiving one or more emails or electronic tasks indicating review has begun and review responsibility has been assigned.

16. The computer-readable media of claim 8, wherein determining if review is needed comprises determining whether the company-recommended design decision is based on patient safety concerns or financial concerns.

17. A design decision management system, comprising:

a data accessing component that allows a user to access design decision data stored in design decision databases over a network;

a user interface component for viewing and selecting accessed data;

a data analysis component for allowing a user to analyze accessed design decision data of multiple client healthcare management system implementations; and

a design review component for reviewing accessed design decision data that conflicts with a solution-provider company design decision recommendation.

18. The system of claim 17, wherein the user is either a solution-provider company responsible party or a client responsible party.

19. The system of claim 17, wherein the data analysis component allows a user to determine which solution-provider company design decision recommendations are most frequently not followed.

20. The system of claim 17, wherein the design review component allows for company responsible party and client responsible party review of design decisions conflicting with solution-provider company-recommended design decisions that may impact patient safety or impact client finances.