Your HIM Department Is Implementing An EHR System Whi 036976

Your Him Department Is Implementing An Ehr System Which Requires Docu

Your HIM department is implementing an Electronic Health Record (EHR) system, which necessitates the digitization of various medical documents, including dictated reports, history and physical (H&P) notes, discharge summaries, and outpatient reports through document imaging or scanning. This transition began six weeks ago, and during this period, employee productivity data has been actively monitored and recorded. The relevant data includes individual employee performance in terms of the number of pages prepped within designated working hours over this initial period. The primary objective is to utilize this data to establish an internal productivity benchmark, evaluate operational efficiency, and inform staffing decisions for the upcoming six-week cycle.

This report aims to analyze and interpret the collected productivity data, assess the potential of using this information to motivate staff and enhance overall performance, and develop a comprehensive monitoring plan utilizing key performance indicators (KPIs). Additionally, external benchmarks and standards sourced from recognized industry guidelines will be incorporated to contextualize internal metrics and support future staffing and process improvement strategies. Emphasis will be placed on integrating KPIs at critical workflow stages to facilitate ongoing performance evaluation and targeted enhancements.

Paper For Above instruction

The successful implementation of an Electronic Health Record (EHR) system hinges significantly on the efficiency and productivity of the department responsible for digitizing paper documents. In this case, the Health Information Management (HIM) department's transition into document imaging involves meticulous scanning of dictated reports, discharge summaries, H&Ps, and outpatient reports. The initial six-week period of operation provides valuable performance data to establish an internal productivity benchmark, which is essential for setting realistic goals, identifying areas for improvement, and guiding staffing decisions for the subsequent cycle.

Analysis of First Six Weeks' Data and Internal Benchmark Development

The productivity data collected over the first six weeks includes individual employee outputs in terms of pages prepped per hour. The sample data indicates the following:

• George: 95 pages
• Laura: 102 pages
• Karen: 94 pages

Calculating the group average productivity yields:

Average = (95 + 102 + 94) / 3 = 97 pages per employee

Identifying the highest producer, Laura, with 102 pages, and the lowest, Karen, at 94 pages, allows for the calculation of a midpoint stretch goal:

Midpoint = (average + highest) / 2 = (97 + 102) / 2 = 99.5 ≈ 100 pages

This midpoint acts as a realistic yet ambitious target that can motivate employees while accounting for individual performance variation. The internal benchmark of approximately 100 pages per employee provides a foundation against which future productivity can be measured.

Applying Data for Feedback and Performance Improvement

Using this internal benchmark, management can offer targeted feedback to employees, recognizing high performers like Laura and providing additional support or training to those below the benchmark. Performance data can be shared periodically, fostering a culture of continuous improvement. Setting individualized goals aligned with the benchmark enhances motivation, which is crucial for maintaining momentum during the transition to the new EHR system.

Furthermore, performance monitoring can facilitate identifying workflow bottlenecks, equipment inadequacies, or training needs. For example, if a particular employee consistently underperforms, management might investigate whether external factors such as additional distractions, technical issues, or insufficient training are contributing to lower productivity.

Staffing Recommendations for the Next Six Weeks

Given the department's workload of 394,524 pages, staffing levels must be adjusted based on expected performance. Assuming the validated benchmark of 100 pages per employee per week (based on current data), the number of employees required to meet the workload can be estimated:

Expected staffing requirement = Total pages / (pages per employee per week * weeks)

Considering the workload of 394,524 pages over a six-week period, the calculation is:

Number of staff = 394,524 / (100 pages * 6 weeks) = approximately 658 employees

This number appears high, indicating the need for efficiency improvements and perhaps revisiting the productivity benchmark as actual achievable rates are refined. Alternatively, optimization of workflows or technology may reduce the needed staffing levels. The goal is to balance workload demands with realistic productivity targets, ensuring timely completion without overextending staff resources.

External Benchmarking and KPI Development

External benchmarking provides valuable insight into industry standards and best practices. According to the AHIMA publication, "Benchmarking Imaging: Making Every Image Count in Scanning Programs" by Rose Dunn (2011), typical imaging productivity benchmarks range around 150–200 pages per hour for experienced staff, depending on document complexity and system efficiency (Dunn, 2011). This suggests that internal benchmarks should aim to reflect or surpass these standards once the department optimizes workflows.

To monitor and improve productivity systematically, it is critical to implement a structured KPI framework at pivotal workflow stages. Three key KPIs could include:

• Prepping Stage Throughput Rate: Number of pages prepped per employee per hour during the prepping phase. This KPI reflects individual efficiency and helps identify training needs or process bottlenecks.
• Accuracy Rate of Scanned Documents: Percentage of error-free scans per batch. High accuracy minimizes the need for rework, ultimately affecting overall productivity and quality standards.
• Turnaround Time in Final Verification: Time from scanning completion to document indexing or storage. This KPI measures process latency, highlighting opportunities for streamlining post-scanning tasks.

Linking these KPIs to workflow stages enables targeted interventions. For example, if prepping throughput declines, strategies like additional staff training, improved ergonomics, or upgraded scanning equipment can be employed. Monitoring accuracy ensures quality is maintained, reducing rework and delays. Measuring turnaround time helps identify process delays outside of the scanning operation itself, promoting holistic workflow improvements.

Conclusion

The initial productivity data provides a valuable benchmark for the HIM department's scanning operations amid EHR implementation. Leveraging this internal benchmark, supplemented by external standards from AHIMA, facilitates data-driven staffing and process improvement decisions. Regular KPI monitoring across critical workflow stages ensures proactive management of productivity, quality, and turnaround times. These strategies collectively contribute to a smoother transition, improved departmental efficiency, and better resource allocation, ultimately supporting the department's goal of efficient and accurate document digitization during the EHR rollout and beyond.

References

• Dunn, R. (2011). Benchmarking Imaging: Making Every Image Count in Scanning Programs. AHIMA. Retrieved from https://www.ahima.org
• American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA). (2015). Best Practices in Document Imaging. Chicago: AHIMA Press.
• Gordon, D., & Weston, A. (2018). Health Information Management Technology: An Applied Approach. Elsevier.
• Häyrinen, K., Saranto, K., & Nykänen, P. (2008). Definition, Structure, Content, Use and Impact of Electronic Health Records: A Review of the Research Literature. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77(5), 291–304.
• HIMSS. (2020). Measuring the Impact of EHR Implementation. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, White Paper.
• O’Donoghue, J., & Davies, M. (2015). Quantitative Methods in Health Care. Springer.
• Rosenbloom, S. J., et al. (2015). The Challenges of EHR Adoption and Data Analytics in Healthcare. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 56, 287–297.
• Vest, J. R., & Gamm, L. D. (2010). State and Local Adoption of Electronic Health Records and Support for Quality Improvement. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 35(4), 569–597.
• Wang, S. J., et al. (2018). Workflow Optimization in Healthcare: Strategies and Techniques. Healthcare Management Review, 43(2), 138–147.
• Zhao, B., et al. (2019). Key Performance Indicators for Healthcare Workflow Management. Journal of Medical Systems, 43, 45.