HCAD 610- WEEK 4
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Maryland Global Campus (UMGC) *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
610
Subject
Health Science
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by toluleye2015
NAME: Tolulope Florence Ogunleye
Class: HCAD 610 Professor: Joshua Malecki Date: 6
th
February 2024
HIT interoperability and standards.
HIT standards are critical to guaranteeing interoperability, safety, and effectiveness in healthcare systems. These standards are developed in collaboration between national and international organizations. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) leads in the United States, while
the International Standards Organization (ISO) plays an important role internationally. This debate will analyze and contrast the responsibilities of NIST and ISO, examine their norms and development processes, investigate which medical facilities should implement their guidelines, and evaluate the worldwide consequences of failing to adopt HIT standards.
NIST, the U.S. national standards organization, develops and promotes technology standards for healthcare IT, ensuring interoperability, security, and quality. ISO, an international organization, focuses on global interoperability and consistency in healthcare IT, fostering international collaboration and addressing global health information exchange complexities. NIST takes a collaborative and inclusive approach to developing standards. The process entails getting feedback from various participants, including industry experts, government departments, and the public. NIST standards are rigorously tested and validated to verify their usefulness and efficacy in real-world applications. ISO standards are developed collaboratively and via consensus. It is based on input from national standards authorities, industry representatives, and global experts. ISO standards are rigorously reviewed and approved to ensure their international relevance and applicability (Bryne, et al, 2010).
Healthcare businesses in the US, including hospitals, clinics, and health systems, are encouraged to incorporate NIST standards for smooth interoperability, data security, and regulatory compliance. NIST standards lay the groundwork for establishing meaningful usage of electronic health records (EHRs) along with other HIT technologies. Implementing ISO standards can improve worldwide interoperability and data exchange among global healthcare organizations, multinational enterprises, and entities operating across numerous nations. ISO standards provide a foundation for ensuring uniformity in IT solutions for healthcare across various regulatory settings (Damodaran, 2023)
The value on the International Market and the Implications of Non-Adoption Globally: ISO standards are highly valued in the international market because of their extensive acceptance and applicability. Organizations that use standards developed by ISO benefit from increased interoperability, more efficient operations, and better global collaboration. Failure to implement HIT standards globally can lead
to scattered health information systems, preventing seamless data exchange, jeopardizing patient care, and limiting research efforts.
2. The Balanced Scorecard methodology and Return on Investment (ROI) analysis are two regularly used approaches for determining and justifying the importance of Health Information Technology (HIT). Let's assess both strategies in terms of benefits and downsides.
ROI Analysis:
Pros: Quantitative metrics ROI offers a clear, quantitative indication of HIT's financial impact. It calculates the net gain to initial investment ratio in an understandable manner.
Financial focus: It's ideal for presenting to top management, who frequently favor financial indicators. It can show possible cost reductions, such as less paperwork, better billing, and fewer errors.
Simplicity: The ROI calculation is simple: (Net Benefits / Cost of Investment) * 100%. This simplicity may make it easier for management to understand.
Cons:
Narrow focus: ROI prioritizes financial outcomes over non-financial benefits such as improved patient care or clinical decision-making.
Long-Term Benefits: Some HIT benefits, such as increased patient satisfaction and better population health, may not be immediately measurable in terms of ROI.
Data Accuracy: Assessing costs and benefits accurately can be difficult because healthcare ROI calculations sometimes include complicated factors and assumptions.
B. Balanced Scorecard (BSC) Methodology:
Pros:
BSC conducts a holistic evaluation, considering many viewpoints such as financial, customer, internal procedures, and learning and growth, to provide a full picture of HIT's influence on different aspects of healthcare delivery. It aligns with organization goals, BSC links HIT projects to
the organization's strategic goals, ensuring that investment is contributing to long-term success.
Intangible advantages Measurement: Unlike ROI analysis, BSC recognizes and evaluates intangible advantages such as better outcomes for patients, physician satisfaction, and healthcare quality.
Cons:
Cons of establishing and upholding a Balanced Scorecard include its complexity and time-
consuming nature. It necessitates the creation of relevant measurements and data collection tools.
Subjectivity: Certain non-financial indicators may be subjective and open to comprehension, making it difficult to evaluate their influence.
Resource intensive: Collecting and analyzing data across numerous dimensions may necessitate the use of more resources.
C.
For executive management presentations, I suggest applying the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) approach. Unlike ROI analysis, BSC provides a more comprehensive evaluation of HIT's worth, considering financial as well as non-financial variables. This approach integrates HIT projects with the organization's long-term objectives while also providing a thorough framework for assessing and communicating their effect on healthcare delivery. BSC is more adapted to garnering CEO support and approval for HIT expenditures because it emphasizes long-term advantages and addresses the needs of a
broader group of stakeholders.
Reference:
American National Standards Institute. (2021). NIST Standards in Healthcare. https://www.ansi.org/
Byrne, C. M., Mercincavage, L. M., Pan, E. C., Vincent, A. G., Johnston, D. S., & Middleton, B. (2010). The value from investments in health information technology at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Health affairs (Project Hope)
, 29
(4), 629–638. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0119
Damodaran, B. (2023, August 18). NIST Cybersecurity Framework vs ISO 27001: Understanding the Differences
. Neumetric. https://www.neumetric.com/nist-cybersecurity-framework-vs-iso-
27001/
Doebbeling, B. N., Chou, A. F., & Tierney, W. M. (2006). Priorities and strategies for the implementation of integrated informatics and communications technology to improve evidence-based practice. Journal of general internal medicine
, 21 Suppl 2
(Suppl 2), S50–S57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00363.x
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Data Standards for Patient Safety; Aspden P, Corrigan JM, Wolcott J, et al., editors. Patient Safety: Achieving a New Standard for Care. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004. 4, Health Care Data Standards. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216088/
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help