Uganda

1. What is the spirit of OpenMRS and why was it developed? wherefore were US universities, US National contribute of Health (NIH) and US donors involved in developing this corpse? 2. What were the impacts of utilize OpenMRS in ISS Clinic? How did the healthcare form improve? 3. What were the problems encountered in using OpenMRS? hold forth the battle of forms and why there were disagreements about what forms to use. Make a greenback between research vs. clinical objectives, US researcher vs. local objectives. 4. Why the OpenMRS project is in danger of failure? Why did the clinicians at ISS clinic secern that we didnt ask for it.It is your problem? Why MOH and US researchers are at odds about the value of OpenMRS? 5. What can be learned from this get when implementing IT projects in developing countries? Do culture and world politics hire a role? Why? 1. The OpenMRS is an electronic medical record form (EMRS) that was developed to rail of patients medical records across a variety of incompatible countries to be used in different types of clinics. Having the software as rough source also meant that the source code could be assessed by anyone and customized to outburst their particular need.In the ISS Clinic in Uganda it was used for patients being treated for HIV/AIDS. The governance was developed to replace paper records which would make the work of researchers and clinic workers easier. The EMRs was used to track patient progress and track the inventory of antiretroviral drugs. US donors were most provoke in the system as it made the retrieving information on patients that is take for their research on AIDS, antiretroviral treatment, and other disease research much much than accessible. 2.The impact of using OpenMRS was that it had greater storage capacity than Microsoft excel and it could be customized for their get particular use. Using the new system clinicians were able to able spend less condemnation reviewing patient data and mor e than time with patients as well as reducing wait times. Since patients usu all toldy did non realize the same clinic staff. The data also allowed them to analyze patient trends and rivet the instance of drug stock outs. They could also use the data coarse to generate random samples for new research studies. 3. The problem with the Open MRS system is that not everyone in the clinic was on board.Clinic workers generally thought of the system as more for the US researchers. Clinicians did not have much access to the system either as their primary weapon was still paper forms. other bump in the road was the Ministry of Health standardizing all forms for HIV clinics meant that ISS essential to redo their system to match the new forms, which also were lacking room the for the additional data needed for UCSF and MGH research. The Ministry of Health in Uganda was concerned with do the drawing of HIV treatment standard for all patients across all the different health platforms, p ublic or private.For the US researchers they wanted to intromit additional data for their various studies. Both the clinic and the researchers goal was to better and more efficiently treat the AIDS epidemic, however for the researchers they also needed to report back to their grant funders and publish studies in order to keep the computer program running. 4. The OpenMRS system was in danger of failure in 2010 because there was not enough financial support to cover the operational cost of the program. bread and butter was being stretched thinner and thinner and one of the clinics big grants was about to expire.The Ugandan Ministry of Health was also not willing to cover the gaps as they did not see the value in the system for their own objectives. The Clinicians didnt see the immediate value of the system for themselves because they thought of it as a tool of the US researchers (US Researchers were the only ones publishing papers using the data) not thinking about how its effect on the day to day operations of the clinic. 5. I think that there is definitely a cultural section to the problem in developing support for the OpenMRS project. The US stakeholders seemed to come in and set up shop without any input from the local wad or regime.They thought that the government should automatically throw their support arse their efforts. The US stakeholders should have really engaged the local people more with the project, getting them more involved in developing the system and reading them to use the system and showing clinicians why it is important for them. The Americans should have also gotten Ugandan researchers involved in using the system to publish their own papers. Having more of a local participation in the project and reservation it a collaborative effort would have made Ugandan government and workers see the system as their own.