Integrated Case Study Overview Throughout This Course

integrated Case Study Overview: Throughout this course, you will use this case

Throughout this course, you will utilize a case study focused on the healthcare needs of oncology patients, the workflow associated with oncology navigation, and the development of user interface and documentation tailored to these needs. The case involves Universal Health, a large non-profit health system with multiple hospitals and oncology programs, including Oncology North and Oncology South, which recently merged and are undergoing a significant EHR conversion to a platform called Chrystal. The project aims to analyze and improve workflows for oncology navigators, assess user needs, design appropriate EHR functionalities, and develop training and documentation to support these users. You will conduct workflow analysis, apply human factors principles, and create a comprehensive design and training plan within a specified timeframe.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The healthcare landscape constantly evolves to meet the complex needs of specialized patient populations. Oncology patients, in particular, require tailored healthcare workflows due to the chronic, intensive, and multidisciplinary nature of cancer treatment. The implementation of electronic health records (EHR) systems, while promising to streamline workflows and improve patient outcomes, also presents challenges that must be carefully managed. This paper explores the process of analyzing and redesigning workflows for oncology navigators within a large healthcare system undergoing EHR conversion, emphasizing usability principles, user needs assessment, documentation development, and training strategies.

Background and Context

Universal Health, a prominent non-profit healthcare system, operates multiple hospitals and specialized oncology programs. The recent merger of two oncology programs—Oncology North and Oncology South—introduced significant operational complexities, compounded by the ongoing transition from legacy EHRs to the Chrystal platform. Oncology North, integrated into Universal Health for eight years, faced functionality gaps within its existing EHR, especially for oncology-specific workflows. Meanwhile, Oncology South expressed concerns about the EHR conversion and the ability to maintain effective workflows post-merger.

There is a critical need to standardize workflows and customize EHR functionalities to meet the specific needs of oncology care teams, including physicians, nurses, and navigators. Oncology navigators play a pivotal role in guiding patients through diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship, yet their workflows and documentation requirements were underdeveloped in the current EHR environment. This presented an opportunity to analyze existing workflows, identify usability gaps, and design solutions that support oncological patient management effectively.

Workflow Analysis and User Needs Assessment

The first step involved onsite observations of oncology navigators at both locations. These observations revealed operational differences—such as initial contact procedures, documentation methods, and patient oversight processes—that needed harmonization. Despite operational differences, common needs emerged, including easier access to documentation, standardized forms, and discrete data fields to facilitate data tracking and outcome measurement. Usability principles, such as simplicity, consistency, and minimal cognitive load, guided the assessment process.

Conducting interviews and shadowing sessions allowed the team to gather qualitative data on the navigators’ tasks, challenges, and preferences. Notably, the existing documentation tools—largely paper forms and shared electronic forms—were found to be inefficient for clinical workflows and data retrieval. This underscored the need to design an intuitive interface that consolidates documentation, supports discrete data entry, and aligns with clinical workflows.

Design of EHR Functionality

The design phase focused on creating tailored EHR functionalities, including custom forms, discrete data fields, and workflow automation features. Leveraging human factors principles, the team aimed to reduce entry errors, improve data visibility, and streamline navigation processes. For example, implementing standardized forms for initial assessments and progress notes, along with discrete fields for key metrics like cancer type, stage, and treatment plan, improved data organization and reporting capabilities. These enhancements would support clinical decision-making and quality improvement initiatives.

User Documentation and Training

Effective user documentation was essential for facilitating adoption. Guides, quick reference sheets, and training modules were developed to familiarize navigators and clinicians with the new workflows and EHR functionalities. Training sessions incorporated hands-on practice, simulations, and feedback loops to ensure comfort and proficiency. Emphasizing usability, the documentation was designed to be clear, concise, and accessible, fostering confidence among users and reducing resistance to change.

Evaluation and Continuous Improvement

Post-implementation, ongoing evaluation metrics, including user satisfaction surveys, workflow efficiency measures, and data accuracy assessments, will be employed to monitor success. Continuous feedback will inform iterative refinements to the system, ensuring that the EHR continues to meet the evolving needs of oncology navigators and the broader clinical team.

Conclusion

The redesign of workflows and EHR functionalities for oncology navigators within Universal Health highlights the importance of user-centered design, usability principles, and thorough needs assessment. By systematically analyzing workflows, understanding user challenges, and developing targeted solutions—supported by comprehensive training—the project aims to enhance the quality of oncology care and improve patient outcomes. As healthcare continues to adopt digital solutions, integrating human factors and workflow optimization remains vital to realizing the full potential of health information technology.

References

• Carayon, P., et al. (2015). Human factors engineering in health care. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24(4), 232-238.
• Gurses, A. P., et al. (2012). Designing health IT systems to support team communication. Journal of Healthcare Engineering, 3(4), 623–639.
• Kaplan, B., & Harris-Salam, D. (2015). Application of human factors principles in the development of health information technology systems. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 55, 134-142.
• Koppel, R., et al. (2008). Role of human factors in health information technology safety. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(3), 334–339.
• McGonigle, D., & Mastrian, K. (2017). Nursing Informatics and the Foundations of Knowledge. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Cresswell, K. M., & Sheikh, A. (2013). Human factors and usability in health information technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(3), e1–e3.
• Venkatesh, V., et al. (2017). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
• Wang, T., et al. (2018). Workflow analysis and redesign in health informatics. Journal of Medical Systems, 42(10), 175.
• Zafar, S., & Kharbanda, O. P. (2016). Evaluation of usability and user satisfaction of electronic health records. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 88, 66-74.
• Yen, P. Y., & Bakken, S. (2012). Review of health information technology usability study methodologies. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19(3), 413–418.