Examine Information Technology Implementation by analyzing a case on using integrated systems that collect,
track, and share information across local- and wide-area network tools to clinical and administrative audiences.
Evaluate the role of health care professionals in HIT acquisition and implementation through application of
financial management.
Applying your role as a summer intern for the not-for-profit organization that was presented in Week 2, you will
continue preparatory work on the strategic plan by addressing the following:
- The Health Information Technology (HIT) standards are developed both by national and international
organizations for local and global implementation. In the US, the national organization is NIST (National
Institute of Standards & Technology) and the international organization is ISO (International Standards
Organization).
Compare and contrast the functions of these two organizations and their healthcare IT standards. Analyze their
standard development processes. Which type of healthcare organizations should implement their standards and
why? Assess the value of the standards on the international market as well as implications for not adopting the
HIT standards globally? - Health Information Technology increases both efficacy and quality of healthcare and aids in operational and
strategic planning. Although it incurs initial implementation investment and then periodic recurring maintenance
and updating costs, it does not generate direct revenue, but the healthcare managers need to justify these costs to
the executive management.
Select two (2) methods or techniques that you would use to determine and justify the value of HIT. Evaluate
both in terms of their pros and cons. Which of these two methods would you recommend to use for presentation
to the management and why? Analyze how these two methods of HIT value determination differ from the
traditional IT value determination for business and healthcare?
Sample Solution
regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can change broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, somewhat that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it very well may be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and allocated to lumps. Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller’s unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pieces of data that can be put away in prompt (present moment) memory, how much data inside every one of those lumps can be very high, without unfavorably influencing the review of similar number>
