UMDC HIMS 670 -Discussion Topic: Feasibility Studies
Description
Hi, please, read and respond to peers in 150 words minimum each supporting, challenging, clarifying, or adding existing information by using credible evidence to support your ideas.
Peer 1:
The goal of a feasibility study is to give an unbiased analysis that considers all components of a proposed project, such as the technical, financial, operational, and legal aspects. The results of this analysis are subsequently utilized to assess whether the project should continue.
The technical feasibility places an emphasis on the technical resources available to the organization. It provides assistance to businesses in determining whether their technical staff is able to transform plans into functioning systems and whether their resources match their capacity (Simplilearn, 2022). In addition, software and hardware compatibility, security and data storage are weighed in this area as they pertain to the implementation of an electronic health record system.
The financial feasibility evaluates the total cost of ownership for an EHR system, factoring in upfront costs as well as ongoing expenses such as staff training and upgrades. The report also assesses the EHR system’s potential economic benefit, like reduced expenses and higher revenues.
The operational feasibility examines the viability of the proposed solution in the target setting by looking in the challenges involved. This evaluates how an EHR system will affect the business as a whole, from the standpoint of the employees, clinical workflow, to the possibility for greater efficiency, quality and productivity. The operational feasibility analysis evaluates how well a proposed plan fits into the current business setting and considers whether the organization will use the product once developed. Some of the factors that will determine the result of this analysis are whether management is on board with the idea, whether the company will gain from the system that is being offered (Indeed, 2022).
The legal aspect evaluates the legal standards and laws that need to be followed in to successfully implement an EHR system. Examples of these include HIPAA compliance, as well as data privacy and security. Legal and statutory regulations are examined to ensure that they are in accordance with both regional and national laws (Newbold, 2021).
Through the examination of a variety of characteristics and the presentation of potential solutions, the feasibility study assists the HER steering committee in gaining a better understanding of the actual problem or aim (Newbold, 2021). It is advisable for an electronic health record system to fulfill the requirements of all four facets of the feasibility study because each aspect is essential to the success of the EHR system as a whole, If a single component is not satisfied, it can have a detrimental influence on the organization’s capacity to effectively utilize the system. On the other hand, meeting all the requirements of the feasibility study may not be achievable. In a case of financial limitations, the organization needs to evaluate the advantages of EHR in comparison to the expenses and complexities associated with its implementation and concluding based on the requirements and concerns that are unique to their operations.
References:
Indeed. (2022, February 2). What is a feasibility study? Definition, benefits and types. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/feasibility-studies
Newbold, S. (2021, July 29). System design lifecycle framework. Nurse Key. https://nursekey.com/system-design-life-cycle-a-framework/
Simplilearn. (2022, December 21). Feasibility study and its importance in project management. https://www.simplilearn.com/feasibility-study-article#:~:text=The%205%20types%20of%20feasibility,Economic%20Feasibility%2C%20and%20Technical%20Feasibility.
Pr 2:
When developing and implementing an in-house Electronic Helath Record (EHR) it is imperative to analyze the feasibility of the proposed system across of four key aspects: technical, financial, operational, and legal.
In regards to the technical aspect, it is necessary that the EHR not only embody the requirements that the hospital would like included within the actual system (e.g., charting, electronic prescription filing, communication between patients and providers, result management, clinical workflow management, etc.), but also the platform must meet the technical requirements of the facility (Penedo, 2022). For example, it is necessary that the EHR meet technical requirements pertaining to integration, extensibility, meaningful use, as well as all other privacy and security concerns. Without fully understanding the technical feasibility of the EHR, the project will not get off the ground and may not seamlessly fit into the overall hospital’s information technology platforms.
Financial and operational feasibility are two additional aspects that must be analyzed. Specifically, it is imperative the hospital fully identifies whether the EHR system will allow the organization to increase income, payoff debt (e.g., from purchasing the system), project cash flow, etc. By determining this information, the hospital will understand whether implementing an EHR is a benefit to the organization. Additionally, from an operational perspective, understanding how the EHR will impact physician time, patient’s access to information, clinical workflow enhancements, etc., is key to determining overall impact in terms of time, process flow, resourcing, etc.
Lastly, yet equally important, a hospital must review the legal feasibility of developing an EHR in house and comprehend whether the proposed system will conflict with any legal requirements (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2022). Further, a review of legal feasibility allows for any updates or changes that must be made to come to the surface so that the EHR can be compliant with all necessary rules and regulations. By reviewing these four aspects of feasibility, a hospital can ensure that the newly proposed EHR meets all necessary requirements and can sustain as a valuable solution.
References:
Penedo, F. J., Medina, H. N., Moreno, P. I., Sookdeo, V., Natori, A., Boland, C., Schlumbrecht, M. P., Calfa, C., MacIntyre, J., Crane, T. E., & Garcia, S. F. (2022). Implementation and Feasibility of an Electronic Health Record–Integrated Patient-Reported Outcomes Symptom and Needs Monitoring Pilot in Ambulatory Oncology. JCO Oncology Practice, 18(7), e1100–e1113. https://doi.org/10.1200/op.21.00706
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2022). The importance of legal feasibility assessments in IBR projects. PwC.
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/legal-business-solutions/corporate-and-commercial/the-importance-of-legal-feasibility-assessments-in-ibr-projects.html
Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
Main Postinga | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
Total Points: 100 | |||||