IHP 610 Brief Analysis Paper Guidelines And Rubric Overview ✓ Solved

Ihp 610 Brief Analysis Paper Guidelines And Rubric Overview

Throughout the course, you will complete three brief analysis papers. These assignments will prepare you to review a particular case, analyze the impact of the case from a variety of perspectives, and make a recommendation for the best course of action supported by your analysis. Within each paper, be sure to address each question in the given prompt and include the following elements: 1. Your analysis of the issue or situation 2. Your assessment of the impact on key stakeholders 3. Your clear recommendations on a course of action or policy

Brief analysis papers should be 1–2 pages in length with one-inch margins, 12-point font, double spacing, and APA formatting for all references and in-text citations.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

In the realm of healthcare management, brief analytical papers serve as a crucial exercise in understanding complex issues, assessing stakeholder impact, and proposing viable solutions. These assignments enable students and future healthcare leaders to develop critical thinking skills, policy analysis capabilities, and an appreciation for the multifaceted nature of healthcare decisions. This paper exemplifies how a structured approach to problem analysis, stakeholder assessment, and strategic recommendation can be effectively implemented within the scope of a concise 1-2 page format.

First, the analysis of the issue or situation must be comprehensive but succinct. For instance, consider a scenario involving the implementation of a new electronic health record (EHR) system in a hospital. The core issue revolves around integrating the new system with minimal disruption while ensuring compliance with health information privacy laws. In this portion of the analysis, it is vital to articulate the nature of the problem clearly, delineate its scope, and highlight any underlying complexities such as technological limitations or staff resistance.

Next, the assessment of impact on key stakeholders is essential. Stakeholders in this context include hospital leadership, healthcare providers, administrative staff, patients, and information technology personnel. An effective analysis considers how each group would be affected, acknowledging both positive and negative impacts. For example, healthcare providers may experience a learning curve, patients might benefit from improved record accuracy, and IT staff could face increased workload during the transition period. Including nuanced impacts and recognizing less obvious stakeholders—such as legal or compliance officers—enriches the analysis.

Following the impact assessment, developing clear and actionable recommendations forms the core of an effective brief analysis. Recommendations should address the identified issues, aim to mitigate negative impacts, and consider stakeholder needs. For example, a recommended course of action might involve phased implementation, comprehensive staff training, and ongoing support to ensure success. The rationale behind each recommendation should be explicitly linked to the analysis of the issue and stakeholder impacts, demonstrating logical coherence and strategic thinking.

In conclusion, a well-crafted brief analysis paper not only identifies the core problem but also evaluates stakeholder repercussions and provides feasible solutions. The brevity of the assignment requires clarity, focus, and precision; yet, it must also reflect depth of understanding and critical insight. By adhering to these principles, students can produce impactful analysis that prepares them for professional decision-making in complex healthcare environments.

References

• Ginter, P. M., Duncan, W. J., & Swayne, L. E. (2018). The Strategic Management of Health Care Organizations (8th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
• Greenhalgh, T., Wherton, J., Papoutsi, C., Lynch, J., & A'Court, C. (2017). Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(11), e367.
• Himmelstein, D. U., & Wolf, L. (2014). The uninsured: A crisis in American health care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 312(15), 1467–1468.
• Shortell, S. M., & Wu, F. M. (2014). Healthy, high-performing health systems. JAMA, 312(16), 1635-1636.
• Balas, E. A., & Boren, S. A. (2000). Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 39(1), 65–70.
• Chung, J., & Nahm, E. (2017). Impact of health information technology on patient safety and quality of care. Nursing Economics, 35(4), 173–180.
• Weiner, B. J., et al. (2017). Implementation science in health care organizations. Implementation Science, 12(1), 1-15.
• Wang, J., et al. (2015). Legal risks associated with health IT implementation. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 43(4), 679–689.
• Scott, I. A., et al. (2014). Value conflicts in health care: The challenge of balancing patient needs and organizational resources. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23(12), 954-958.
• McGinnis, J. M., et al. (2016). The legal framework for health information technology. The New England Journal of Medicine, 375(21), 2062-2064.