Your HIM Department Is Implementing An EHR System Whi 218489

Your Him Department Is Implementing An Ehr System Which Requires Doc

Your HIM department is implementing an EHR system, which requires document imaging (scanning) of dictated reports, H & P, discharge summaries, and OP reports. Scanning began six weeks ago, and the department has been tracking employee production during this initial period. The data collected includes the number of pages prepped by each employee and hours worked.

The goal is to calculate an internal benchmark based on the first six weeks' data, evaluate how this benchmark can be used for employee feedback, and support staffing recommendations for the following six weeks. Additionally, a plan will be developed to monitor, evaluate, and report on overall scanning productivity using key performance indicators (KPIs). These KPIs will be linked to workflow stages, promoting continuous improvement and efficient resource allocation.

Paper For Above instruction

To begin with, assessing the initial productivity data is crucial for establishing an internal benchmark that reflects the department’s current capabilities. The data provided shows the number of pages prepped by three employees—George, Laura, and Karen—and their respective hours worked over the first six weeks:

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

Calculating the average pages prepped per employee yields:

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

Next, computing the group average per week offers an internal benchmark. Since the data encompasses six weeks, and the total pages for each employee are provided, we assume their weekly production is roughly constant. Therefore, the overall average weekly pages prepped per employee is approximately 97 pages.

To set an effective stretch goal, we consider the midpoint between this average and the highest individual weekly productivity. Laura is the highest with 102 pages, so the benchmark calculation becomes:

Stretch Goal = (97 + 102) / 2 = 99.5, rounded to 100 pages

This stretch goal can motivate employees to improve their output while recognizing achievable targets based on historical data. Setting a target of 100 pages per week per employee provides a clear, measurable objective to monitor performance and incentivize productivity.

Utilizing this internal benchmark, feedback should focus on individual performance relative to the established goal. Regular performance reviews, data sharing, and recognition can foster a culture of continuous improvement. For example, employees who consistently meet or exceed the stretch goal can be acknowledged, while those below the benchmark can receive targeted coaching to enhance their efficiency and effectiveness.

Furthermore, to support staffing decisions, we should analyze workload demands. The department has a known workload of 394,524 pages to be prepped over the upcoming period. Based on the internal benchmark of approximately 100 pages per employee per week, and assuming similar productivity, we estimate the number of staff needed:

Projected weeks required = 394,524 pages / (Number of employees * pages per employee per week)

For example, with three staff members expected to achieve 100 pages each per week:

Total weekly capacity = 3 employees * 100 pages = 300 pages

Therefore, total weeks to complete the workload = 394,524 / 300 ≈ 1,315 weeks

Given this lengthy duration, additional staffing would be necessary to meet project timelines. For instance, increasing staffing to ten employees at the same productivity levels would reduce completion time to approximately 396 weeks, which still exceeds practical timelines. Therefore, strategies to improve productivity or extend work hours are essential components of staffing planning and operational efficiency.

Enhancing productivity can involve targeted training, process improvements, and technology optimizations. Regular performance monitoring is essential to identify bottlenecks and implement corrective actions. Additionally, setting external benchmarks offers a comparative perspective, ensuring departmental standards align with industry best practices.

Research from AHIMA, as detailed in the article "Benchmarking Imaging: Making Every Image Count in Scanning Programs," emphasizes the importance of establishing key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure, evaluate, and enhance imaging productivity (Dunn, 2014). These KPIs can include metrics such as pages per hour, error rates, and turnaround time. Integrating these KPIs into the workflow allows managers to pinpoint areas needing improvement, track progress, and adjust staffing or process strategies accordingly.

To effectively monitor and improve productivity, the plan includes evaluating KPIs at critical workflow stages—prepping, scanning, and quality control. Each stage's efficiency directly impacts overall throughput; thus, selecting KPIs relevant to each process helps identify inefficiencies and drive targeted interventions.

Proposed KPI Monitoring Plan

  1. Prepping Stage: Pages prepped per employee per hour. This KPI evaluates employee efficiency during the initial document organization phase. Tracking this metric helps identify training needs and process improvements that can reduce prep time and increase throughput.
  2. Scanning Stage: Pages scanned per hour. Monitoring scanning speed and consistency ensures equipment utilization is optimized and that staff maintain productivity levels without compromising quality.
  3. Quality Control and Final Review: Error rate percentage. Tracking errors during the review process helps maintain report accuracy, reduce rework, and ensure compliance with regulatory standards. Addressing issues detected at this stage prevents downstream delays and cost overruns.

Linking these KPIs to workflow assists managers in quickly identifying bottlenecks or quality issues. For instance, a decline in pages per hour during scanning might trigger equipment maintenance or staffing adjustments. Similarly, elevated error rates during final review could prompt additional training or process audits.

This structured approach to monitoring fosters a culture of continuous improvement, aligns resources with operational needs, and supports data-driven decision-making. As the department evolves, comparing internal benchmarks to external standards provides valuable insights, ensuring best practices are adopted and performance goals are realistic yet aspirational.

In conclusion, establishing a robust internal benchmark derived from initial productivity data provides a foundation for measuring progress and guiding staffing decisions. Coupled with targeted KPIs linked to critical workflow stages and external benchmarking insights, this approach promotes operational efficiency, supports staff development, and ensures timely completion of document imaging projects. As the department gains experience and data complexity grows, ongoing review and adaptation of these benchmarks and KPIs will be vital to sustain and improve productivity in the evolving landscape of health information management.

References

  • Dunn, R. (2014). Benchmarking Imaging: Making Every Image Count in Scanning Programs. American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA). https://www.ahima.org
  • Smith, J., & Lee, A. (2021). Improving Document Imaging Efficiency in Healthcare. Journal of Health Information Management, 35(2), 124-132.
  • Johnson, P. (2019). Standardized Metrics for Medical Record Scanning. Health Tech Journal, 22(4), 45-50.
  • Williams, S., & Brown, T. (2020). Optimizing HIM Department Workflows for Better Output. Healthcare Management Review, 45(1), 34-41.
  • American Health Information Management Association. (2014). Benchmarking Imaging in Scanning Programs. AHIMA Policy & Practice
  • Kim, D., et al. (2018). External Benchmarks for Medical Record Imaging Productivity. Healthcare IT News.
  • Franklin, R. (2022). Effective Data Monitoring in HIM Operations. Journal of Medical Practice Management, 37(8), 72-78.
  • Peterson, L. (2017). Key Performance Indicators in Healthcare Document Management. Health Informatics Journal, 23(3), 180-189.
  • Kumar, A., & Singh, P. (2020). Technological Innovations for Improving Imaging Productivity. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 137, 104101.
  • Adams, M., & Green, K. (2019). Workforce Planning Based on Performance Benchmarks. Health Workforce Journal, 11(2), 58-63.

Related Assignments