Management & Health Information Systems - Report Example

?Management & Health Information Systems Number: Part Health Information Management Project Start-Up Document Introduction Information systems have over the recent past radicalized many aspects of human life. Health care system is quickly adopting a strategically aligned information system deemed to increase efficiency, emergency handling, better and hospitable health care for all citizens. Health professionals are gradually advancing in knowledge and research into disease prevention and better service delivery. Nevertheless, technology has saved many headaches, troubles and inconsistencies in healthcare. With regard to problem and needs assessment in health care, constructing a master holder of the required clinical information is a key concern. This study would therefore, like to use a system that utilizes reporting programs to view trends of patients under patient care. This is to be adopted as a Clinical Data Repository (CDR) project with clear objectives and deliverables. 1. Project scope: This report will study clinical components that will constitute an integrated Clinical Data Repository (CDR) which will allow the elements to be fed into it ultimately allowing family physicians and doctors to view holistically the attributes of a patient while enhancing the quality of healthcare given to patients. Family members will be able to qualify for incentives like bonuses and patient oriented medical home rewarding programs. There is a principle engine that comprises a mix of elements to guarantee a clinical decision. This project will involve creating a secure Clinical Data Repository that is able to provide data of patients under authorized access. The objectives of this project will be: i) Assess how family physicians will maximize their professional quality care given to patients ii) Examine how family members will benefit from the bonuses and reward systems facilitated by CDR project. iii) Explore the strategies of bringing on board a more secure clinical data repository. Outputs of the project will prioritize the needs of both physicians and patients, creating a patient-doctor relationship. This project will cost $ 23,000 to meet personnel and technical costs with International Health Research Institute (IHRI) being the key sponsor. It is expected to be done 14 months to cover 9 tasks. Tasks will include data collection, system design, implementation, tests and project go live. Time implications and focus will be on how the outcomes of the feasibility studies have on planning and implementation of the project. The progress of the project will be communicated by the project manager at regular basis. This project is expected to commence on 30 June 2012 The report will also be issued at completion of the project August 2013. Project duration: 14 months 2. Project outlines business case - purpose & rationale: Health institutions continue to experience delays in receiving payer contracts because of the indecisiveness brought by irregular procedures and managerial bureaucracies. The CDR project will allow for maximization of health informatics expertise through quick report generation, easy collection of benchmark data and data ownership. Electronic health records are crucial in hospital administration but owing to insufficiency of tools to perform such tasks, family physicians have been at the receiving end. Analysis from feasibility studies has shown that existing patients’ data reporting programs are weak and bureaucratic. Aligning this function will bring more benefits to both physician and patients during treatment and claims from health insurers. Process claims will be done quickly and pay-for-performance incentives will be due on time. The benefits can be tabulated as below. 3. Options for project delivery: During the phase of project implementation, information system designers can use different ways to execute their work. Conventional methods used in the IT industry today are being challenged by clients and consultants in an attempt to reduce time wastage, limit costs and conflicts while building on system quality. It is true that minor variations exists making each schedule unique: the differences: traditional system design method, information management and design-implement. All these methods harbor certain advantages and limitations. Option 1: Bid-Design-Execute It is a linear process and involves three stages, the client will ask for bids to provide an information system then engages the selected system designer to design. The administrator then runs the program at all levels of the institution. The system administrator will supervise much of the tasks. This is very common in most undertakings as it allows for selection of low-bidding designer, thorough bidding and clearly defines roles of each assigned party. Option 2: Design-Assist It is highly informal as the client already has the designers in mind and goes ahead to negotiate fees and charges. The key players are the client, designers and administrators who build on teamwork from the early part of the design process. Design and documentation are done by designers while costing, scheduling, and monitoring and evaluation will be done by the project manager. The mandate lies with the project manager in subcontracting and hiring. It is common when the project manager is working and meeting regularly with the system designers and administrators. It builds on teamwork, and the designers are available at design phase. Less instances of litigation are observed. Option 3: Design-Run It has a single point of responsibility of design and implementation combined. The two prime players will be the project manager and system designers. Once the pre-selection tools have been set by the client the steps are then limited to design and implement. Design is completed by system designers and also has the role of implementing the program/software. It is used for projects requiring quick implementation and completion dates, minimizes owners risk, lowers the chances of change orders and reduces delays associated with implementation. 4. High-level project risk management: Summary risk management of the evidence-based key risks to project delivery & suggested controls for identified risks using an evidence-based risk management methodology. Risks: 1. Unclear user requirements definition method casus delay in meeting resourcing needs of the project the project should ensure that listing of all the requirements is done in good time and forward to computer inventory team. 2. Late delivery and procurement of computers has often led to delay in implementation of the project. This can be mitigated by quick identification and scheduling of resource requirements for early 3. Poor communication between designers and project management leads to conflicting project implementation phases, mixed signals of project deliverables and objectives. As a result the solution should be by way of clear reporting and frequency of reports be relayed to all the concerned parties 4. Insufficient informatics knowledge among decision makers leads to difficult to determine cost benefit of the project. Therefore decision makers should heed requests of the sponsors and maximize use of project resources. 5. Divergent opinions of customers and suppliers regarding nature of system design should be harmonized by request opinions from suppliers and creditors by interviewing or filling questionnaires. 6. Unauthorized access to patient’s data by staff leads to misunderstanding the concept of technology therefore leading to betrayal and lose of trust by patients on the health institution management should use passwords to block access of unauthorized persons 5. Project resource costs: 1. Purchase of 12 computers requires about $ 6000 needed for system development and system support. 2. Computer accessories may cost $ 2000 as additional accessories 3. Hiring and selection of staff estimate costs runs up to $ 12000 meant for Human resource staff outsourced 4. Administrative costs may be about$ 5000 to facilitate project communication and implementation. The total costs come to about $23,000. 6. Project stages & timescales: Activity Description Predecessors Duration (weeks) A Carry out data collection and analyze - 13 B List computer inventory requirements - 8 C Prepare final design plans and layout A 10 D Select, interview and hire staff for system design and administration B 20 E Purchase and deliver computers B 23 F Develop the information system E 30 G Test and run the system D,E,F 5 H Train IT line staff and system support E,F,G 3 7. Project investment appraisal: Projected benefits of adopting a Clinical Data Repository (CDR) i) Patient Benefits** a) Improved quality of life b) Increased revenue boosters c) Enhanced level of care to patients d) More privacy to clinical information Costs a) Claim forms b) Saves 20% of $ 30,000 in annual bonuses and reward schemes. c) Reduces by 40% the 30 days time loss running for claims. ii) Family physician/Doctor Benefits a) Ease of submission and retrieval of clinical data b) Improved practice revenue c) Help physicians in adopting best practices d) Better relationship with health insurance providers. Costs a) Retrieval costs: Saves 25% of time lost in 365 days in data retrieval b) Registration fees: 20% of costs reduced on the basis of annual $ 15,000 system maintenance 8. Project interfaces: This project is expected to interface with systems for collecting system data and the following data repository products: a) EHR data project b) VMware sever farm c) Spreadsheet programs d) CDR interface with external project systems 9. Project quality expectations: a) To ensure that the desired quality of the Health Care Information System is built into the final product especially designs procedures, methods, and reviews. b) To meet the expectation of sponsors by ensuring cost optimization and quality product delivery c) To monitor and evaluate product development to quality management 10. Associated documents: i) Terms of reference ii) Communication plans iii) Financial plans iv) Risk management plans v) Human resource plans 11. Customers & users of project deliverables: Deliverable 1: Listing computers and other inventory requirements by procurement and purchase department. Deliverable 2: Analyzed data to be used by HR and procurement for outsourcing needs Deliverable 3: IT artifact of the HRIS outlook for the design team and administrators Deliverable 4: The HRIS clinical data repository system for companywide use Deliverable 5: Document on test procedures and results for use by the administrators and audit team Deliverable 6: Training module for IT staff and system support staff 12. Proposed project governance: Part 2: Poster Health Information Management Project Start-Up Document Authors: Msc in Quality and Safety in Healthcare Management INTRODUCTION A clinical data repository Information System is one of the new projects daunted to provide efficient and effective paycheck and expense reports. Diagram (a) “I have the responsibility and the obligation as the CDRIS project manager, to initiate and eventually occasion the installation of the CDRIS system after completion. Outputs of the project will prioritize the needs of both physicians and patients, creating a patient-doctor relationship.” “This project will cost $ 23,000 to meet personnel and technical costs with International Health Research Institute (IHRI) being the key sponsor. It is expected to be done 14 months to cover 9 tasks.” CONCLUSION Health institutions continue to experience delays in receiving payer contracts because of the indecisiveness brought by irregular procedures and managerial bureaucracies. The CDR project will allow for maximization of health informatics expertise through quick report generation, easy collection of benchmark data and data ownership. Electronic health records are crucial in hospital administration but owing to insufficiency of tools to perform such tasks, family physicians have been at the receiving end. Analysis from feasibility studies has shown that existing patients’ data reporting programs are weak and bureaucratic. REFERENCES: Engelbrecht, R 2005, Connecting Medical Informatics and Bio-informatics: Proceedings of MIE2005 : the XIXth International Congress of the European Federation for Medical Informatics, IOS Press. Evans, GJ 2006, A Framework for measuring Project Metrics, CVR/IT Consulting LLC. Glandon, GL, Glandon, DH, Slovensky, DJ, Boxerman, SB & Admin, AOUPIH 2008, Austin and Boxerman's Information Systems For Healthcare Management, Health Administration Press. AIM Outputs of the project will prioritize the needs of both physicians and patients, creating a patient-doctor relationship. METHOD This study utilized empirical study approach with stratified random samples from questionnaires. 30 Physicians and patients were sampled. RESULTS Existing information has outlined clinical data repository workflow integration. Access policies and data access tools. The results affirm that CDR helps patients and practitioners benefit from the process. Conclusion Health Information systems have the capability of changing the lives of both patients and physicians. This can be attributed to the ease of efficiency, effectiveness in emergency handling, service provision to all citizens. Health professionals are in tandem with times when newer medical practices geared on better service delivery is always an appropriate panacea in disease prevention and better service delivery. Indeed, specialized technology has saved many headaches, troubles and inconsistencies in healthcare. Problem solving and needs identification has been catered for by thorough research in health care. In the nutshell, the Clinical Data Repository (CDR), system will go a long way in providing reporting programs to view trends of patients under patient care. References Barnes, D 2008, Operations Management: An International Perspective, Cengage Learning EMEA. Berg, M 2005, Health Information Management: Integrating Information and Communication Technology in Health Care Work, Routledge. Blokdijk, G 2008, IT Service Operations Management Guide, Lulu.com. Cleland, DI & Ireland, LR 2006, Project Management: Strategic Design And Implementation, McGraw-Hill Prof Med/Tech. Creswell, J 2003, Research Design: Qualitative, and mixed method approaches, Sge Publications, California. Di Lima, SN & Publishers), ARG( 1998, A Practical Introduction to Health Information Management, Jones & Bartlett Learning. Dykman, CA & Davis, CK 2008, 'Sticking to the Basics: Information Technology at the Glue Factory', Information Technology Management in Developing Countries, pp. 276-293. Engelbrecht, R 2005, Connecting Medical Informatics and Bio-informatics: Proceedings of MIE2005 : the XIXth International Congress of the European Federation for Medical Informatics, IOS Press. Evans, GJ 2006, A Framework for measuring Project Metrics, CVR/IT Consulting LLC. Glandon, GL, Glandon, DH, Slovensky, DJ, Boxerman, SB & Admin, AOUPIH 2008, Austin and Boxerman's Information Systems For Healthcare Management, Health Administration Press. Hachman, MZ & Johnson, CE 2000, Leadership: The communication Perspective, Waveland Press, Prosepct Heights, IL. Haworth, SH 2006, It Operations Management Tweet Book01: Managing Your It Infrastructure in the Age of Complexity, Happy About. Heerkens, G 2007, Project Management: 24 Steps to Help You Master Any Project, McGraw-Hill Professional. Johnson, M 2011, It Operations Management: What You Need to Know for It Operations Management, Lightning Source Inc. Kerzner, H 2009, Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling, John Wiley & Sons. Kvale, S 2006, Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing, Sage, California. Lewis, M & Slack, N 2009, Operations Management: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, Routledge. Lin, H, Kemp, J & Gilbert, P 2010, 'Computing Gamma Calculus on Computer Cluster', International Journal of Technology Diffusion, pp. 42-52. Mcneill, P & Chapman, S 2007, Research Methods: Third Edition, Routledge. Merlino, J & Wrightson, K 2008, Corel Linux OS Starter Kit: The Official Guide, Osborne/McGraw Hill. mombet, IK 2010, computer networks, macmillan. Munhall, P 1998, 'Ethical considerations in Qualitative reserach', Western Journal of Nursing Research, pp. 10(2),150-160. O'Carroll, PW 2003, Public Health Informatics and Information Systems, Springer. Stegwee, RA & Spil, TAM 2001, Strategies for Healthcare Information Systems, Idea Group Inc (IGI). Tan, JKH 2009, Adaptive Health Management Information Systems: Concepts, Cases, and Practical Applications, Fay Cobb Payton. Wager, KA, Lee, FW & Glaser, JP 2009, Health Care Information Systems: A Practical Approach for Health Care Management, John Wiley & Sons. Kerzner, H 2009, Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling, John Wiley & Sons. Menken, I 2008, Virtualization Architecture, Adoption and Monetization of Virtualization Projects Using Best Practice Service Strategy, Service Design, Service Transition, Service Operation and Continual Service Improvement Processes, Lulu.com. Merlino, J & Wrightson, K 2008, Corel Linux OS Starter Kit: The Official Guide, Osborne/McGraw Hill. Muller, A, Wilson, S & Happe, D 2005, Virtualization With VMware ESX Server, Syngress. Wager, KA, Lee, FW & Glaser, JP 2009, Health Care Information Systems: A Practical Approach for Health Care Management, John Wiley & Sons. Winne, ND, Janssen, M, Bharosa, N, Wijk, RV & Hulstijn, J 2011, 'Transforming Public-Private Networks An XBRL-Based Infrastructure for Transforming Businessto-', International Journal of Electronic Government Research, pp. 35-45. Read More