evaluation of clinical information systems

evaluation of clinical information systems

Order ID	53563633773
Type	Essay
Writer Level	Masters
Style	APA
Sources/References	4
Perfect Number of Pages to Order	5-10 Pages

Description/Paper Instructions

evaluation of clinical information systems

Evaluation Paper – Mini-Lecture

Purpose

The purpose of this module is to address major questions related to the evaluation of clinical information systems, including a definition of evaluation, a description of why evaluation is needed, and questions that can be posed about clinical information systems. The various perspectives of those concerned are discussed in the readings and lecture.  Also, each student will propose and justify a plan of evaluation for a web-based patient portal.

Learning Outcome

Upon finishing this module, you should be able to:

• Define the evaluation of clinical information systems

• Describe the reasons for performing the evaluation

• Describe who is involved in the evaluation and why

• Discuss the challenges in evaluating clinical information systems

• Propose measurement techniques/tools for clinical evaluation systems

Clinical information systems are developed. Is the system performing as intended? Can it be improved?  Subsequently, the system is introduced into a functioning clinical practice environment. Again, is it performing as intended? Does it make any difference in clinical practice? Are the observed effects those intended by the developers? Is the clinical process improved?

Evaluating clinical information systems is challenging in large part because there are so many options, and there is almost never an obvious way to proceed. The following points, though, need repeating.

1. In any evaluation setting, there are many potential questions to be addressed. What is asked shapes the answers?

2. There is little or no consensus on what constitutes appropriate questions.

3. There are many ways to address the questions, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

4. There’s no such thing as the perfect clinical information system.

The assessment of diagnostic, interventional, treatment, and educational tools in healthcare involves 9 domains; each of which can be assessed individually or in combination depending on the scope and objective of the evaluation:

1. Health problem and potential use

2. Description of technical characteristics

3. Safety

4. Effectiveness

5. Cost and economic evaluation

6. Ethical aspects

7. Organizational aspects

8. Social aspects

9. Legal aspects

Each domain must be defined in assessment elements (~ the characteristics of the domain); each element containing a generic issue must be translated into a practical measurement.

In addition, there is no single accepted definition of evaluation. It is useful for you to state an operational definition that can be articulated concisely and defended. Friedman and Wyatt (1997, p 20) offer three discrete definitions – based on literature review –  that may help shape your personal operational definition.

• Evaluation (Rossi and Freeman) is the systematic application of social research procedures to judge and improve the way information resources are designed and implemented.

• Evaluation (Guba and Lincoln) is the process of describing the implementation of an information resource and judging its merit and worth.

• Evaluation (House) leads to the settled opinion that something about an information source is the case, usually but not always leading to a decision to act in a certain way.

Mindset for Evaluation:

Tailor the evaluation to the problem intended to be addressed by the information system

• Collect data useful for making decisions

• Look for intended and unintended effects

• Study the information system at different times under development and after implementation

• Study the source in laboratory and practice setting

• Expand beyond the developer’s point of view

• Pay attention to the clinical context(s)

• Let key issues emerge over time.

• Be methodological and eclectic

References

Agency Healthcare Research and Quality. (2009). Health information evaluation toolkit. AHRQ Publication No. 09-0083-EF.   https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/page/Evaluation%20Toolkit%20Revised%20Version.pdf (Links to an external site.)

Blobel, B.,& Pharow, P. (2009) Analysis and evaluation of EHR approaches. Methods of Information in Medicine 48(2), 162–169. https://doi.org/10.3414/ME9211 (Links to an external site.)

Brown, B., Balatsoukas, P., Williams, R., Sperrin, M., & Buchan, I. (2018). Multi-method laboratory user evaluation of an actionable clinical performance information system: Implications for usability and patient safety. Journal of biomedical informatics, 77, 62-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2017.11.008 (Links to an external site.)

Burkle, T., Ammenwerth, E., Prokosch, H. U., & Dudeck, J. (2002). Evaluation of clinical information systems. What can be evaluated and what cannot? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 7(4), 373-385. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00291.x (Links to an external site.)

Harrison, M. I., Koppel, R., & Bar-Lev, S. (2007). Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care- An interactive sociotechnical analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 14(5), 542-549. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2384 (Links to an external site.)

Kristensen, F.B., Lampe, K., Chase, D.L., Lee-Robin, S.H., Wild, C., Moharra, M., . . . Bistrup, M.L. (2009). Practical tools and methods for health technology assessment in Europe: Structures, methodologies, and tools developed by the European network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 25(S2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462309990626 (Links to an external site.)

Kopanitsa, G., Tsvetkova, Z., & Veseli, H. (2012). Analysis of metrics for the usability evaluation of EHR management systems. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 180, 358-362. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-101-4-358

Nykänen, P., Brender, J., Talmon, J., de Keizer, N., Rigby, M., Beuscart-Zephir, M.C., & Ammenwerth, E. (2011). Guideline for good evaluation practice in health informatics (GEP-HI). International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80(12), 815-827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.08.004 (Links to an external site.)

Sligo, J., Gauld, R., Roberts, V., & Villa, L. (2017). A literature review for large-scale health information system project planning, implementation and evaluation. International journal of medical informatics, 97, 86-97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.09.007 (Links to an external site.)

Schulman, J., Kuperman, G.J., Kharbanda, A., & Kaushal, R. (2007). Discovering how to think about a hospital patient information system by struggling to evaluate it: A committee’s journal. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 14(5), 537–541. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2436 (Links to an external site.)

Tang, T., Lim, M.E., Mansfield, E., McLachlan, A., & Quan, S.D. (2018). Clinician user involvement in the real world: Designing an electronic tool to improve interprofessional communication and collaboration in a hospital setting. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 110, 90-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.11.011 (Links to an external site.)

Wyatt, J.C., & Wyatt, S.M. (2003). When and how to evaluate health information systems? International Journal of Medical Informatics, 692-3), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1386-5056(02)00108-9 (Links to an external site.)

Yen, P.Y., & Bakken, S. (2012). Review of health information technology usability study methodologies. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 19(3), 413-422. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2010-000020 (Links to an external site.)

Yusof, M.M., Kuljis, J., Papazafeiropoulou, A., & Stergioulas, L.K. (2008). An evaluation framework for Health Information Systems: Human, organization and technology-fit factors (HOT-fit). International. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.08.011 (Links to an external site.)

Evaluation Paper – Introduction and Readings

This assignment’s objective is to demonstrate that you can assess that a patient portal is functioning as intended. This assignment requires you to use course content from all of the previous modules in this course. In this paper, you will propose and defend a detailed and measurable evaluation plan for recently implemented changes to your Patient Web Portal. These changes include:

Text reminders for an upcoming appointment

Requests to complete the Intake Sheet (aka “Clipboard”) online 48 hrs before your visit

The plan will include evaluations of the system at multiple points in time and your rationale for selecting evaluation methods.

Assignment Details

This assignment is worth 100 points, distributed as follows.

Evaluations of the system at the following point of time (60 points):

At the time of implementation (20 points)

3 months after initial implementation (20 points)

One year after implementation (20 points)

Rationale(s) of the selection of evaluation method(s) (20 points)

Presentation and layout of paper (10 points)

APA style and references (10 points)

The following two documents can serve as a guiding framework for your paper:

https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/page/health-information-technology-evaluation-toolkit-2009-update.pdf

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hsrph.html

Required Readings: (  pages)

Andargoli, A.E., Scheepers, H., Rajendran, D., & Sohal, A. (2017). Health information systems evaluation frameworks: A systematic review.

Andargoli, A.E., Scheepers, H., Rajendran, D., & Sohal, A. (2017). Health information systems evaluation frameworks: A systematic review.   Download Health information systems evaluation frameworks: A systematic review.International Journal of Medical Informatics, 97, 195-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.10.008

Granja, C., Janssen, W., & Johansen, M.A. (2018). Factors determining the success and failure of ehealth interventions: Systematic review of the literature. (Links to an external site.) Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(5). e10235. https://doi.org/10.2196/10235

Jensen, S., Kushniruk, A.W., & Nøhr, C. (2015). Clinical simulation: A method for development and evaluation of clinical information systems.   Download Clinical simulation: A method for development and evaluation of clinical information systems.Journal of biomedical informatics, 54, 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2015.02.002

Scott, P., Brown, A.W., Friedman, C.P., Wyatt, J.C., Georgiou, A., & Eisenstein, E.L. (2014). Improving the science of health informatics by using validated instruments and outcome measures.   Download Improving the science of health informatics by using validated instruments and outcome measures.Medical Informatics Europe. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Improving-the-science-of-health-informatics-by-and-Scott-Brown/4c7e80c012ddee46c1e99b6368a7946afa435ac0#extracted

RUBRIC QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points:  Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50:  The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50:  The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately.  Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50:  The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples.  The answer is complete. 50 points:  The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples.  No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points:  Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points:  Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points:  References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated.  Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points:  Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented.  APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors.  There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points:  Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented.  APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points:  Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20:  The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors  10 points out 20:  The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20:  The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points:  The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points:  Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements.  The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper.
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER CLICK ON THE LINK HERE:  https://essaybasket.com/orders/ordernow Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.com/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!

Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!

Why Work With Us!!

• Tired of getting an average grade in all your school assignments, projects, essays, and homework? Try us today for all your academic schoolwork needs. We are among the most trusted and recognized professional writing services in the market.

• We provide unique, original and plagiarism-free high quality academic, homework, assignments and essay submissions for all our clients. At our company, we capitalize on producing A+ Grades for all our clients and also ensure that you have smooth academic progress in all your school term and semesters.

• High-quality academic submissions, A 100% plagiarism-free submission, Meet even the most urgent deadlines, Provide our services to you at the most competitive rates in the market, Give you free revisions until you meet your desired grades and Provide you with 24/7 customer support service via calls or live chats.