Change Theories In Healthcare Informatics
PAPER OUTLINE 3
We write papers for students
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper.
Get Help Now!Paper Outline: Planned Change in Healthcare Informatics
Vladimir Belyaev
7/26/2020
Paper Outline: Planned Change in Healthcare Informatics
Thesis statement:
As health care systems seek to improve service delivery through advanced health care information systems, changes should be accompanied by thorough research in support of effective implementations
1) Healthcare Informatics is the optimization of knowledge and large sets of data with the intention of improving service delivery in the Healthcare Field
2) The Health Care field has reached a tipping point as the revolutionising effects of innovation, modernity and digitalization continue to catch up to it.
A. There is limited application of informatics when it comes to strategic change that is generally planned for the Healthcare field and various fields of practice (Booth et al., 2013).
B. There is need for an adaptive Healthcare system that is able to optimize on available resources rather than a responsive system characterized by poor planning which in turn affects service delivery (Boustani et al, 2010).
3) Everyone stands to benefit from an effective healthcare system.
A. Planned changes will transform the current system to one that is able to adapt to new challenges (Boustani et al., 2010).
B. There will be better optimization of available resources which will in turn save on costs of services (Dark et al., 2017).
C. A dynamic healthcare system will improve patient satisfaction (Terglav et al., 2019)
D. An effective system will improve healthcare personnel satisfaction which has been proven to be necessary in order to foster dedication and motivation among healthcare workers (Johnson & May, 2017).
4) The current healthcare system does not live up to its “Discovery to Delivery” Anthem
A. Planned changes for the Healthcare Filed are supported by little research and knowledge. These changes are therefore more likely to have little positive impact (Booth et al.,2013).
B. Current reviews of the Healthcare Field fail to depict the reality of the field and the challenges that shareholders face in their struggle to offer quality healthcare services (Pawson et al., 2014).
C. There is limited involvement of critical healthcare service providers in the plans to effect systemic change which will in future affect the implementation of change (Corace et al., 2016).
5) Planned changes for Healthcare Informatics need to follow the innovative process decision making process
A. The process needs to be supported by adequate and relevant research (Booth et al., 2013)
B. There is need for better communication among the relevant shareholders to ensure that there is total team involvement (Johnson & May, 2015)
C. Fina decisions need to be systemically implemented across the board for optimal results (Dark et al., 2017).
D. Systemic changes need to be frequently reviewed to evaluate their effectiveness in order to create a dynamic Healthcare system (Pawson et al., 2014).
Change Theories In Healthcare Informatics
This section will be 5 pages.
Thesis Statement: Diffusion of Innovation in Healthcare.
I. What is the history of Diffusion of Innovation?
A. The Theory of Diffusion of Innovation by Everett Rogers.
1. Inventor of Diffusion of Innovation Theory. (Mohammadi et al. 2018).
2. Five attributes of innovation and how the perception of these attributes impacts the rate of adoption. (Mohammadi et al. 2018).
II. Stages in Diffusion of Innovation.
A. There are various stages of Diffusion mentioned by Everett Rogers that play a role in how innovation is adapted by users.
1. Early Adopter Stage: Early adopters have a shorter decision process time, deal with abstract concepts and are more willing to accept the uncertainty in adopting an innovation. Evaluation and analysis of program implementation and clinical use is an important driver to adoption for the early majority practices. (Pelletier et al. 2011).
2. Early Majority Stage: Identifying key factors that ease the transition from early adopter group to early majority group. Some of the key factors that helped ease the transition was setting up champions in different stages and having senior leadership involvement during the various stages. (Pelletier et al. 2011).
III. Factors that Influence Diffusion of Innovation: There are many factors that influence or impact innovation from the early stages on through the phase of implementation. Some of the factors listed during this research were as follows:
A. Organizational.
1. The organizational leaders as a whole need to have vision, strategic plan, funding, a good Health Information Technology (HIT) department, great communication, standards and protocols in place, proper channels for dissemination of information and transparency of data. (Parston et al. 2015.).
B. Health Care Providers includes anyone who interacts with patients.
1. Knowledge level, work experience and perception of attributes plays a vital role in the adoption of innovation because as one develops an awareness toward the innovation, the more receptive they become. (Mohammed et al. 2018).
C. Patients.
1. The patient-level factor includes their beliefs, their level of motivation, personality and degree of illness which can impact outcomes. (Chaudoir et al. 2013).
D. Stakeholders. Stakeholders play a very important role from the beginning of innovation to the implementation stage. Every stakeholder has interests from their own experience and background. (Lambooij & Hummel. 2013).
IV. Advantages of Innovation in Healthcare. There are many advantages associated with innovations in healthcare. Over the years we have seen how electronic health records has positively impacted healthcare.
1. Are aimed at improving health outcomes, administrative efficiency, cost effectiveness, or users’ experience. (Barnett et al. 2011).
2. Improvement in efficiency in health care, health gains of the patient after implementation of the innovation, employee and patient satisfaction. (Lambooij & Hummel. 2013).
V. Barriers to implementation of Innovation in HealthCare.
A. Although there are many advantages to healthcare innovations, there are many barriers that have impacted the diffusion and collaboration among every system.
1. Capital investment costs, lack of reliable reimbursement mechanisms, design defects that have made some systems time-consuming and inefficient to use. (Pelletier et al. 2011).
2. Lack of specific support staff. (Pelletier et al. 2011).
3. The barriers to adaption and use includes technology issues, time famine and lack of familiarity and experience of their utility. (Reyneke et al. 2018).
4. Misguided public opinion, biased incentives, Information overload, uneven implementation. (Balas et al. 2018).
5. Various Stakeholders groups. (Lambooij & Hummel. 2013).
This section will be 4-5 pages.
A. The five stages of the innovation-decision process play a crucial role in whether a technological system will be adopted (Walitzer et al., 2015).
I. Knowledge involves learning about an innovation which an individual is not exposed to yet. This process allows an individual to learn and have that exposure to innovation (Walitzer et al., 2015).
II. In the second step, the persuasion step involved the individual becoming more interested in innovation and is persuasive to continue finding more information about it (Walitzer et al., 2015).
III. The decision stage enables an individual to find the advantages and disadvantages of the innovation with the concepts of change to allow them to decided were to adopt or reject the innovation (Walitzer et al., 2015).
1. It is important to research innovations and identify their advantages and disadvantages before putting them forward for the use of patients (Turner et al., 2017).
IV. The fourth stage is the implementation stage in which innovation is applied to a situation to find its usefulness and do further research (Walitzer et al., 2015).
1. Systems have to be tested and modified if they are not serving their purpose (Turner et al., 2017).
2. . The usefulness of innovation will be one of the determining factors of its implementation in the public eye (Turner et al., 2017).
V. The last stage is the confirmation stage, in which the individual decides on deciding whether the innovation will be used (Walitzer et al., 2015).
B. Health information systems such as e-appointment scheduling services and Personal Health Records (PHRs) allow health informatics to modernize and make the healthcare delivery system more accessible (Zhang et al., 2015).
I. A “simple but typical consumer e-health innovation – an e-appointment scheduling service – was developed and implemented in a primary health care clinic” (Zhang et al., 2015).
1. This health information system wanted to help patients manage their healthcare care and allow this management to be done more efficiently and effectively (Zhang et al., 2015).
II. There “are a number of different fundamental designs for PHRs. We use the term PHR to refer to the records themselves and the information systems used to support them. Electronic versions can include internet-based portals or computer-based applications” (Archer, 2011).
1. Different versions of electronic personal health records are tested to determine the best option for patients to adopt and enable them to apply these systems to their healthcare management easily.
2. As “the uptake and use of tethered PHRs grew, empirical research emerged on adoption and used rates of and satisfaction with PHRs. In terms of PHR use, the most commonly used functionalities of PHRs are the review of medical test results (laboratory and radiology results), requests for medication refills, and clinical messaging with the provider and practice” (Emani et al., 2012).
I. The different functions of PHR systems allow its usefulness in the implementation stage to be identified to enable the decision-making process of adopting the system easier.
II. The “goal of the PHR is to encourage patients and health consumers to take individual responsibility for their health by being more engaged in the health care process through the use of the PHR” (Househ et al., 2014).
III. The “goal of the PHR is to encourage patients and health consumers to take individual responsibility for their health by being more engaged in the health care process through the use of the PHR” (Househ et al., 2014).
This section will be 4-5 pages.
References
Booth, B.J., Zwar, N. & Harris, M.F. (2013). Healthcare improvement as planned system
change or complex responsive processes? A longitudinal case study in general
practice. BMC Fam Pract 14, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-14-51
Boustani, M. A., Munger, S., Gulati, R., Vogel, M., Beck, R. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2010). Selecting a change and evaluating its impact on the performance of a complex3
adaptive health care delivery system. Clinical interventions in aging, 5, 141–148.
Corace, K.M, Srigley, J.A., Hargadon, D.P., et al. (2016). Using behavior change
frameworks to improve healthcare worker influenza vaccination rates: A systematic
review. Vaccine. 2016;34(28):3235-3242. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.04.071
Pawson R, Greenhalgh J, Brennan C, Glidewell E. (2014). Do reviews of healthcare interventions teach us how to improve healthcare systems?. Soc Sci Med;114:129-137. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.032
Terglav, B., Selak, Š., Vrdelja, M., Kaučič, B., & Gabrovec, B. (2019). Patient satisfaction with the level of being informed about the changes in Slovenian healthcare system, Pielegniarstwo XXI wieku / Nursing in the 21st Century, 18(1), 37-41. doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/pielxxiw-2019-0003
Dark, F., Whiteford, H., Ashkanasy, N.M., et al. (2017). The impact of organisational change and fiscal restraint on organizational culture. Int J Ment Health Syst 11, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-016-0116-0
Johnson, M. J., & May, C. R. (2015). Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews. BMJ open, 5(9), e008592.
Balas, E. A., & Chapman, W. W. (2018). Road map for diffusion of innovation in health care. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 37(2), 198-204. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1155
Barnett, J., Vasileiou, K., Djemil, F., Brooks, L., & Young, T. (2011). Understanding innovators’ experiences of barriers and facilitators in implementation and diffusion of healthcare service innovations: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research. 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-342
Chaudoir, S. R., Dugan, A. G., & Barr, C. H. (2013). Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: A systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implementation Science. 8(1). doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-22
Mohammadi, M.M., Poursaberi, R. & Salahshoor, M.R. (2018). Evaluating the Adoption of Evidence-Based Practice using Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovation Theory: a model testing study. Health Promotion Perspectives. 8(1). 25-32.
doi:10.15171/hpp.2018.03
Parston, G., McQueen, J., Patel, H., Keown, O. P., Fontana, G., Kuwari, H. A., & Darzi, A. (2015). ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: The science and art of delivery: Accelerating the diffusion of health care innovation. Health Affairs, 34(12). 2160- 2166. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0406
Pelletier, A. C., Jethwani, K., Bello, H., Kvedar, J., & Grant, R. W. (2011). Implementing a Web-Based Home Monitoring System within an Academic Health Care Network: Barriers and Facilitators to Innovation Diffusion. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 5(1), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681100500105
Reyneke, A., Jaye, C. & Stokes, T. (2018). “Local Clinical Pathways: From ‘good Ideas’ to ‘practicality’ for General Practitioners.” Journal of primary health care. 10(3).
Archer, N., Fevrier-Thomas, U., Lokker, C., McKibbon, K., Straus, S. (2011). Personal health records: a scoping review, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 18(4), https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000105
Emani, S., Yamin, C. K., Peters, E., Karson, A. S., Lipsitz, S. R., Wald, J. S., Williams, D. H., & Bates, D. W. (2012). Patient perceptions of a personal health record: a test of the diffusion of innovation model. Journal of medical Internet research, 14(6), e150. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2278
Househ, M. S., Borycki, E. M., Rohrer, W. M., & Kushniruk, A. W. (2014). Developing a framework for meaningful use of personal health records (PHRs). Elsevier. https://daneshyari.com/article/preview/3327278.pdf
Turner, S., D’Lima, D., Hudson, E., Morris, S., Sheringham, J., Swart, N., & Fulop, N. J. (2017). Evidence use in decision-making on introducing innovations: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder feedback. Implementation science: IS, 12(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0669-6
Walitzer, K. S., Dermen, K. H., Barrick, C., & Shyhalla, K. (2015). Modeling the Innovation-Decision Process: Dissemination and Adoption of a Motivational Interviewing Preparatory Procedure In Addiction Outpatient Clinics. Journal of substance abuse treatment, 57, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2015.04.003
Zhang, X., Yu, P., Yan, J., & Ton A M Spil, I. (2015). Using diffusion of innovation theory to understand the factors impacting patient acceptance and use of consumer e-health innovations: a case study in a primary care clinic. BMC health services research, 15, 71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0726-2
