HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEM – STRATEGIC PLANNING Essay Example

  • Category:
    Other
  • Document type:
    Assignment
  • Level:
    Undergraduate
  • Page:
    2
  • Words:
    1084

HIS — strategic planning 7

Abstract

Cerner Information System is a unified suite of digital solutions targeted at streamlining the administration of the health care facilities, cutting costs and improving overall health care delivery. Cerner enables clinicians and other authorized users to efficiently manage processes and share date across the whole organization (Cerner, 2013). This paper provides a detailed discussion of the criteria that will be used to monitor and assess the information system, discussion of a schedule recommended to help in determining if the project is a success and finally, a discussion of data collection tool to help in the assessment of the quality of the information system.

Introduction

Evaluation and monitoring of health information system is described as the assessment of the system, its effectiveness, efficiency, implementation and its social and economic effects (Mbananga, Madale & Becker, 2002). The key objective for monitoring and assessing a system is to check whether the system enables the users to generate data, process data as well as disseminate information in a systematic manner. Discovery of the strengths and weaknesses of the information system enables decision-makers to improve the quality of the system (Fidock, Carroll & Rynne 2006).

Criteria for monitoring the Information System

For the purpose of monitoring and assessing the Cerner information system, this paper recommends DeLone and McLean Information Systems Success Model, also known as DMSM , for post-implementation evaluation of the system (DeLone & McLean, 2003).

DMSM has a standard model that consists of six categories for measuring the success of an information system. The categories include the quality of information, the quality of the system, usability, organizational impact, individual impact and user satisfaction (DeLone & McLean, 1992). The quality of information used refers to determining the accuracy of the information. For instance whether the information generated or disseminated is error-free. The quality of information is measured in terms of it accuracy, relevance, completeness and consistency (Vasilecas, 2006).

Individual impact involves measuring the direct consequence of the system to an individual user and involves job effectiveness, quality of decision-making and quality of work. Organization impact involves measuring the system based on the quality of decisions the organization makes, the productivity and organizational profitability (DeLone & McLean, 1992).

User satisfaction involves testing whether the system helps an individual or organization to fulfill its objectives. System qualities measured include the system’s reliability, functionality, dependency and flexibility.

System Use involves measuring the qualities of the system that include dependency, number of accesses frequency of use, pattern usage and time of usage. System quality is measured based of the ease of its use, dependency on the system and reliability, its flexibility, significance and integration (DeLone & McLean, 2003).

Health Information System – Strategic Planning

Table 1: DMSM criteria for data evaluation {adapted from DeLone W, McLean E (2003)}

Schedule for system evaluation

The period of evaluation will take 12 days. A total of 6 participants will be evaluated to find out their opinions about the system. In particular, each participant will be required to comment on their experiences in using various functionalities and offer comments related to use, reliability and so forth. Each of the six categories for evaluation and monitoring the information system is suggested above. Two days will be dedicated for each of the 6 categories of the DMSM mentioned above. The first day will involve interviewing the users of the system while the second day will involve literature search and assessing the system to validate the comments made by each participant. While the nurses, the physicians and other authorized users will be interviewed in the first 8 days, a focus group discussion between the system designers and administrators will take the remaining 4 days, where the discussion will feature for two days and literature search and assessment of the system done on the remaining two days.

Discussion of data collection tool for the assessment

The evaluation will apply a arrange of qualitative instruments such as focus group discussion (FGD) and key informant (KI) interview in the collection of information on the implementation of the information system at the college. A total of six FGDs will be conducted with users of the system (including physicians, nurses, clinicians and other authorized users) to discover their opinions and expectation on using the system. The FDGs are designed to enable participants who have engaged with the system to explore the functionality and usability of the health information system through completion of questions related to what they might undertake in their work-related activities (Odhiambo-Otieno & Odero, 2005).

Key informant interviews will be held with two administrators of the system, two nurses and two physicians who heavily use the system. An interview guide will be developed for collection of data in key issues, such as data input and output, system cost-effectiveness, timeliness, overall system design process, system personnel quality and quantity, status of the computers, impact of system on health care delivery (Odhiambo-Otieno & Odero, 2005).

Conclusion

In conclusion, monitoring and assessing the information system requires an effective strategic plan if the process has to effectively established whether the system’s implementation is successful. This paper recommends a model for evaluation called DeLone and McLean Information Systems Success Model, also known as DMSM , as it is the most comprehensive information system evaluation criteria
(DeLone & McLean, 2003). The evaluation will take 12 days. Qualitative instruments such as focus group discussion (FGD) and key informant (KI) interview will be used to collect date during the evaluation.

References

Cerner. (2013). PowerOrders. Retrieved from https://store.cerner.com/items/201

DeLone W, McLean E (1992) Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research. Vol 3, no 1.

DeLone W, McLean E (2003): “The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-year Update.” Journal of Management Information Systems, vol 19, no 4.

Fidock, J.,Carroll, J. & Rynne Anita. (2006). Evaluating information systems: an appropriation perspective. Retrieved from: [http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Information+Systems+Foundations%3A+The+Role+of+Design+Science/5131/ch06.xhtml] Accessed 10 June 2013

Mbananga, N. Madale, R. & Becker, P. (2002). Evaluation of Hospital Information System In The Northern Province In South Africa. Pretoria: The Medical Research Council of South Africa

Odhiambo-Otieno, G. & Odero, W.(2005). «Evaluation criteria for the district health management information systems: Lessons from the Ministry of Health, Kenya.» African Health Sciences, 5(1): 59–64.

Palmius, J. (2007). Criteria for measuring and comparing information systems. Proceedings of the 30th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia IRIS 2007. Retrieved from: [http://www.palmius.com/joel/text/IRIS-30-final.pdf] Accessed 10 June 2013

Vasilecas, O., Saulis, A. & Dereškevičius, S. (2006). «Evaluation Of Information Systems Procurement: Goal And Task-Driven Approaches.» Information Technology and Control, Vol.35, No.3