|Type of paper:
|Software Healthcare Information systems
The major vision and goal of iHealth is a fully digitalized and custom integrated health records system that replaces outdated paper processes. Globally, health services systems are aligning towards complete use of information technology to aid in the provision of health care all over the continent and mostly in small care settings (Suter,Oelke, Adair & Armitage, 2009) . Key stakeholders need to concur with the outcomes and vision of the iHealth project.
Through implementation and usage of electronic health records systems, there will be an improved patient outcome. This will be possible by standardized clinical and health practices, better decision making through decision support, optimization of the program and using of data to develop health interventions. Stakeholders need to find the necessary resources that will be an intermediary between IT concerns and those of the health providers.
The stakeholders should leverage project supporters and aid in the creation of other supporters who are skeptical. Stakeholders need to embrace the iHealth system since reverting to previous paper-based system will be significantly disruptive (Bibet, 2012.). This will be undoing years invested in achieving an advanced digital health functionality in a country. This will go against the dynamic changes in health care trends across the world.
Stakeholders and the administration should tackle the notion of the system being unsafe inorder to achieve viable results at the end. The effort to address this will develop a culture based on trusted relationships. Health care providers and end users require access to timely, properly implemented electronic clinical record and quality health care systems that delivers health and treatment data in all the ways needed.
Impact of User Feedback and Responsive Pro-active Steps to End User
It is important to act on user feedback prior to the project roll out phase is because it enables adjusting resources, raising the belief in the success of the system and associated programs and to work on implementing improvements in the system (Cbc, 2018.). It enables monitoring of the quality and strength of care rendered.
It helps in comprehensive knowledge of proper and adequately suspend CPOE. This is because relation between CPOE to EHR functionality would not favor safe production of a single component (Berg, Aarts & van der lei, 2003.). The provision of written concerns over suspension of CPOE allows the board to properly provide additional support with back up reports. It allows input from all category of stakeholders and key users hence proper understanding as why not all physicians embrace EHR.
Proactive steps taken include dealing with as many reported technology support incidents especially the critical issues (Berg, Aarts & van der lei, 2003.). The revalidation procedure aimed at following up on the matters raised by physicians, experts and other related working personnel and actions taken to address the concerns made. Creation of revalidation Oversite group and working committee for any specialty area to assess the current EHR toolset and identify room for improvement and modification.
After the completion of the Cochrane recommendations, continue to make changes and modifications to the program to tackle technical issues that arise from the recommendations. Bargaining the experience of peer organizations causing avoidance and fast solutions to the shortcomings (gov.bc, 2018.). Commit on the finishing within the approved budget envelope and developing a fiscal plan aimed to ending the remainder scope by the money over and beyond the previously proposed capital budget
Formulated Observations and Actionable Recommendations to Improve iHealth
Risk to patient safety where three computer system related events were reported at NRGH since march 2016.this concern is related to the hybrid system in the ED and ICU (islandhealth, 2016.). Experts suggests that the benefits of scrapping off paper process is much greater than the risk from the EHR. Culture and Governance contains problems created by the design, build and the implementing of the phases of the iHealth project has created to challenges in acceptance and distrust within the major stakeholders mainly physicians and island health administration (healthcareitnews, 2018.). iHealth is viewed to have a succeed at all cost approach to measuring success by progress in implementation instead of the intensity of the final results.
Benefit realization of the cost of the EHR systems is hard to determine. Health organization lack the baseline quality and efficiency data which determine the benefit hence only a small number of the specific benefits realized. Site level benefits set by iHealth can be attained (Bibet, 2012.). Project finances shortfall where iHealth face difficulty attaining the complete project scope. The capital budget envelope is not fully funded which is closing by delaying IMIT project and reducing its working capital. They have come up with a fiscal program aimed at fulfilling iHealth scope beyond the attainable within the capital budget envelope
iHealth system-related shortcoming where it requires improvement in functionalism and usage of the system. iHealth functionality notes issues proposed by the Medical Staff Association to be disconnected with shortcoming experienced at locations having already embraced similar systems (Berg, Aarts & der lei, 2003.). Cochrane recommendations links the progress of iHealth in creating advanced improvements to the functionality and programme utilization. This report recommends the next step from the current state. It comprises of regular assessment of the functional needs of providing care and acceptance of the requirements in an expedious manner.
Risk Identification and Process of Implementing Large Scale Software Application
Service funding for long bound care, social care, primary care, short term home care, acute care and also mental health care are required to incorporate funds all over the system. Complete scope of the health and clinical related services (healthcareitnews, 2018.). Non segregated clinical programs are useful to coordinate all core services all through the health duration for the patients treated. It involves services from primary to tertiary care with coordination among social and health care organizations.
The level of integration is brought about by factors such as the level the providers is entered into the bigger picture and the proportion of care programs assimilated into the system. Patient focus based on meeting the needs of the patients by assimilating delivery systems and not the provider desires. This is seen through checking the needs of the population that bring programme organizing, data management and the need to remodel internal programs to better patient outcome and fulfillment (McGihon, Hawke, Chaim & Henderson, 2018.)
Topographical rostering and coverage as total access of the provided services by patients to reduce duplication. The program is liable for an identified group of individuals in a geographical area with the residents able to seek other health care provision freely. Interprofessional groups providing care delivery enduring continuity in health care process.
Maintenance of professional liberty, incentives are given to meet performance and effectiveness levels (Bibet, 2012.). Properly developed performance auditing systems that contains indicators to determine performance and outcome in different levels. It poses a structured approach to performance monitoring and how they may be addressed (Gonzalez, Calxiolari, Goodwin & Stein, 2018.).
Quality information system improves communication and information growth through integrated pathways (vancouversun, 2018.). The importance of this is remote access to data from anywhere in the health organizations even in remote sites to increase smooth communication among the care providers. Assimilation of organizations and programs into a health system through contractual relationships requiring development of leadership formation that bring about coordination.
Positive Influence to Stakeholders Dissatisfied With Current State of Project
Derailing the IHealth 2.0 program and come up with a concrete, comprehensive and irresistible plan for the next step. Given the continuing shortcomings and unreliability of the current activation, I would make sure personnel users have undergone complete training and proved capable of handling the program before activating it in new location (Jones, Dobrev, Artmann, Stroetmann, 2007.). Skilled and qualified support personnel will be present to give the necessary support after invigoration in a new site. I would highly reevaluate planned roll outs of big bang. Prospective plans must be completely phased and reflect on the shortcomings of peer Canadian organizations.
The establishment should check on the changes required to be made from a population, program and technology standpoint then come up with a sound plan for the next chapter that covers the proposed recommendations. The programs already in the activation phase should not be halted as this will not be logical (health.gov, 2018.). The invigoration in progress represent smaller risk than the acute care stream, thus I would proceed with moderation and very prudently.
Advancing, appropriation of linkages having clinical program governance will ensure decisions made from a clinical point of view. In addition, evaluation and maintaining clinical input and taking in advice from HAMAC to input ideas from project teams. (Vancouversun, 2018.) Introduction of an implementing program assurance committee that will check on validation and verification procedure and report directly to the CEO. Involve the local leaders of the clinical program to sign off that the system is ready for activation. Physicians will be trained and compensated.
Berg, M., & van der Lei, J. (2003). ICT in health care: sociotechnical approaches. Methods of information in medicine, 42(04), 297-301
Gonzalez-Ortiz, L. G., Calciolari, S., Goodwin, N., & Stein, V. (2018). The Core Dimensions of Integrated Care: A Literature Review to Support the Development of a Comprehensive Framework for Implementing Integrated Care. International journal of integrated care, 18(3), 10. doi:10.5334/ijic.4198
Jones, T., Dobrev, A., Artmann, J., & Stroetmann, V. N. (2007). Conceptual framework, healthcare and eHealth investment context and challenges. F. eHealth, European Commission, DG INFSO & Media.
McGihon, R., Hawke, L. D., Chaim, G., & Henderson, J. (2018). Cross-sectoral integration in youth-focused health and social services in Canada: a social network analysis. BMC health services research, 18(1), 901. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3742-1
Cite this page
Essay Example on iHealth: Digitalizing Health Care for Better Health Outcomes. (2022, Dec 26). Retrieved from https://speedypaper.com/essays/essay-example-on-ihealth-digitalizing-health-care-for-better-health-outcomes
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal:
- Free Essay on Employee Satisfaction and Work Motivation in Engineering Company
- Essay Sample on Online Scholarly Discussions
- Final Project Paper: Statistical Analysis Report in Mental Health
- Essay Sample on Interviewing Psychiatric Patients
- Gag Reflex - Essay Sample for Your Inspiration
- Essay Example: Health Informatics in the Research Settings and HCO
- Work in Global Society - Free Example of Article Review Essay