Assignment 2 Strategic Action Plan Elements

Assignment 2 Strategic Action Plansthere Are Some Elements Missing Fr

There Are Some Elements Missing Fr

Assignment 2: Strategic Action Plans There are some elements missing from the action plan in Table 9.1 in your text book . If the EMR system is to be integrated with similar systems at local hospitals, and the physicians fully utilize its data-sharing capabilities, representatives from the hospitals must be drawn into this implementation process. (Moseley III, George B. . Managing Health Care Business Strategy . Jones & Bartlett Publishers, May 2008. p. 251).

Write a three page report answering the following questions: What elements (at least two) are missing from the action plan in Table 9.1 for the EMR system? Justify your choice. Describe the activities that should be implemented to address the missing elements. Describe where these activities would be added to the list (relative to the other activities already listed). Specify exactly which people from the hospitals and practice will participate in these new activities and justify your choice.

Paper For Above instruction

The implementation of an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) system within a physician practice is a complex process that requires meticulous planning and coordination among various stakeholders. While the existing action plan outlined in Table 9.1 addresses essential steps such as vendor consultation, physician involvement, and vendor negotiations, it overlooks critical elements necessary for comprehensive and seamless integration—particularly with external entities such as local hospitals.

Two significant elements missing from the current action plan are: (1) stakeholder engagement involving hospital representatives and (2) interoperability planning to ensure data-sharing capabilities across different systems. Justification for these omissions stems from the recognition that successful EMR implementation, especially in an integrated healthcare environment, relies heavily on collaborative planning and technical compatibility among all parties involved.

Stakeholder Engagement and Hospital Engagement

Effective data sharing between community hospitals and physician practices mandates active participation from hospital representatives. Incorporating hospital stakeholders in the planning process ensures alignment of goals, technical compatibility, and shared understanding of data governance policies. Activities to address this include organizing joint planning meetings at early stages, around weeks 1–4, to discuss expectations, data-sharing needs, and infrastructural requirements. These activities should be added immediately after the initial vendor consultation but before finalizing system specifications, to ensure hospital needs and existing systems are factored into the selection process.

Participants in these hospital engagement activities would be representatives from hospital IT departments, hospital administrators, and clinical leaders. Their involvement is justified as they possess the necessary expertise on hospital systems, data management policies, and regulatory compliance. Including these stakeholders fosters collaborative decision-making, mitigates integration risks, and facilitates smoother data exchange during and after implementation.

Interoperability Planning

Beyond stakeholder involvement, the plan lacks explicit steps for ensuring technical interoperability between the physician practice and local hospitals. To address this, activities such as defining technical standards (e.g., HL7, FHIR), conducting interoperability testing, and establishing ongoing data-sharing protocols should be incorporated. These activities could be scheduled between weeks 8–12, overlapping with the activities for establishing criteria and vendor proposals but emphasizing technical testing and standards validation.

Specific activities include developing interoperability requirements in collaboration with hospital IT teams, conducting pilot testing of data exchange, and documenting workflows for shared data access. These activities should be integrated after the establishment of evaluation criteria, ensuring that interoperability considerations are embedded within the system selection and vendor negotiation phases.

The personnel involved would include hospital IT staff, the practice’s IT and business managers, and physician leaders—all of whom are essential for defining technical standards, testing data exchange functionalities, and validating interoperability practices. Their participation ensures that the chosen EMR system can effectively share data with hospitals, enabling coordinated care, reducing duplicated efforts, and improving overall patient outcomes.

Conclusion

In summary, the two missing elements—hospital stakeholder engagement and interoperability planning—are critical for successful EMR integration, especially in a networked healthcare environment. Incorporating these activities early in the project timeline fosters collaborative decision-making, technical compatibility, and sustainable data sharing. Aligning the implementation process with hospital capabilities and standards promotes seamless information flow, ultimately enhancing patient care delivery and operational efficiency.

References

  • HIMSS. (2018). Interoperability in Healthcare: Challenges and Opportunities. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society. https://www.himss.org/resources/interoperability-healthcare
  • Jones, S. S., Rudin, R. S., Perry, T., & Shekelle, P. G. (2014). Assessing the Evidence for Interventions to Improve Health Care Quality: An Updated Systematic Review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 160(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.7326/M13-2140
  • Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. (2015). Connecting Health and Care for the Nation: A Shared Nationwide Interoperability Roadmap. https://www.healthit.gov
  • Moseley III, George B. (2008). Managing Health Care Business Strategy. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
  • Adler-Milstein, J., & Jha, A. K. (2017). HITECH Act Drivers and the Impact on Health Information Technology. The Milbank Quarterly, 95(1), 86–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12287
  • Blumenthal, D., & Tavenner, M. (2010). The 'Meaningful Use' Regulation for Electronic Health Records. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(6), 501–504. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1006114
  • Vest, J. R., & Gamm, L. D. (2010). Health Information Exchange: Persistent Challenges and New Strategies. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 17(3), 288–294. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2010.002479
  • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2016). EHR Incentive Programs: Advancing Interoperability. https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms
  • Kellermann, A. L., & Jones, S. S. (2013). What It Will Take To Achieve The As-Yet-Unfulfilled Promises of Health Information Technology. Health Affairs, 32(1), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0693
  • Häyrinen, K., Saranto, K., & Nykänen, P. (2008). Definition, Structure, Content, Use and Impacts of Electronic Health Records: A Review of the Research Literature. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77(5), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.09.001

Related Assignments