Report On Evaluation Of Health Information Systems

Summary of the Evaluation Report

Describe the Report on Evaluation of Health Information Systems.

This evaluation report presents the findings of the study on information systems on health. Inferently, the major proposition highlighted in this report is that quality of data and its subsequent use are interconnected, that is data of poor quality is not used and will remain in that state (Mphatswearker & Rollins, 2012). Equally, the maximization in the use of data helps in the improvement of its quality. Notably, this hypothesis has experimented in workshops for data use, which encourages the enhancement of information value by teamwork building, endorsing orderly peer review, and motivating individual assessment to targets.

The objective of this evaluation is to articulate and appraise the results of the health information systems in gathering and distributing accurate information on illnesses, assessment of the public health services and institutions while also protecting the data from people who can actually cause harm (Craglia & Maheswaran, 2016).

Four initiatives were established in relation to the health information system evaluation and in order to improve its effectivity in providing medical care to people (Kongstvedt, 2012). These initiatives include strengthening and gathering of routine health data, improving the capacity to manage health information systems, addressing gaps with durable tools and increasing the capacity for rigorous evaluation (Abdelhak & Hanken, 2014).

Mini Conclusion

The Evaluation concludes that although there are advancements in technology which offer sufficient information to individuals regarding the provision and management of medical care services, such advantages have not been taken into account to improve reporting. Furthermore, with respect to ensuring equitable provision of quality health standards, the recommendations are in agreement with the continuing debate on health information systems.

Introduction

Health Information Systems (HIS) play a role in facilitating making decisions based on evidence in all stages, especially at the collection part. Therefore, this evaluation seeks to analyze the extent to which these systems have been utilized because the primary concern is to improve the health conditions of a given people. This is has been achieved through the successful organization of means of gathering, analyzing and presenting and adequate health planning (Kuperman & Pryor, 2013).

Numerous flaws have been associated with the implementation of information systems such as lack of guidelines, inadequate personnel, and lack of exchange of ideas and deprived management. Generally, health information system guarantees inadequate statistics for the observance of health objectives and giving the public apt news on health. Nevertheless, the availability and utilization of health facilities is important in the medical field for health practitioners and the public (Mair & Murray, 2012).

Background to Health Information Systems

In relation to the health information systems, evaluation has been conducted due to the high investment levels in the health sector and the need to cater for the targeted groups (Padhy & Satapathy, 2012). Consequently, the measurement of performances has become a great issue of concern in the hierarchy of the health sector management. Moreover, pressure and influence alike have been exerted on nations need for information, leading to increased demand and the subsequent cooperation by bilateral and multilateral donors.

The utilization of information technology in the medical care raises its own set of rules which concern individual’s rights to privacy and the subsequent safeguarding of those civil liberties. These human rights are secured to assist in the enhancement of appropriate morals for the delivery of healthcare services through utilizing technology (Yen & Bakken, 2012).

In achieving best medical care through evaluation practices, civic health practitioners, and plan producers apply information to perform the following functions.

To monitor and regulate the tendencies in health services and the subsequent results

To ensure the reliability and straightforwardness of data and its associated elements

Information is used in the effective and clear decision-making processes, and these decisions are made without delay

To enhance the synchronization of health services and the equality in the distribution of medical care

Information is also utilized in the management of resources to help in the greatest maximization of profits

The effect of information systems of health has been observed in both public and private sectors alongside other organizations and the public in general. Additionally these influences are both in a positive and negative way to the enactment of the health and information systems in provisions of quality services.

The evaluation concludes that the public has witnessed the changes in the occurrence of events related to health and accountability on the part of the responsible authorities. Additionally, the public has been accorded relevance on the affairs of the ministry of health performances through a series of publications upon requests.

The evaluation is of the opinion that presently there is no statute that obliges the private and public sectors to provide their data to the public and responsible bodies. However, through the HIS, medical service providers in this sector have a standing necessity in submitting their information frequently as stated to give a good public image.

Health information systems endeavors to work in unity with other organizations such as the ministry of health to assist in the building of a solidifying social and health data that collects, analyses and publishes the system.

Assessment of Initiatives

It was decided to define and design practical initiatives to ensure that the recommendations led to tangible results

In systems of less established countries, one does not exist, while in advanced countries the schemes seek an upgrade with minimal external support. Therefore good information systems are important in looking into health challenges and improvement of medical standards in developing countries. However, the data quality generated by these systems are poor and non-effective in decision making even though there have been international concerns to develop a durable health information mechanism. Undisputedly, factors such as lack of coordinated health activities and standards of data, impracticable ambitions and the incapability of system designers in handling multifaceted cultural and social issues are a barrier to the functionality of HIS (Kaye & Chinitz, 2013).

Less advanced programs require assistance in creating a successful strategy on management whereas established plans boast resilient leadership in the health ministry. This has been possible through the use of the underutilization of data in decision making and logic model respectively. The logic model explains how activities and inputs on intervention are utilized in influencing the final outcomes of frequent use of health data in policy development and making decisions. The undertakings included in the logic model are the engagement of data users and creators, improving data quality, evaluating, monitoring and communicating outcomes of data use involvements (Koh & Parchman, 2013).

The underutilization of data in making decisions is not adequately used in development and improvement of policy, tactical planning, or supporting health information systems. Moreover, the complex nature on how hospitals use and contribute to HIS, making decisions, information flow and laxity in data availability contributes to a breakdown inefficient services.

The execution of a prosperous health integration result demands that an institution recognizes its present position and cognize the gaps between its anticipated state and the current one. Therefore in the identification of gaps, a SWOT analysis of suggested reforms, determination of present combination needs, confirmation of enterprise processes, and the insight on reusable assets are indispensable. Evaluation serves to bridge the gaps in countries to a point where they are harnessing methodologies to help in the initiation of effective health information programs. Effectively, a properly calculated determination of gaps adds up to the formulation of inventive and applicable solutions, therefore, it is crucial for a health information system to adapt to many variables that advance operational medical care mechanisms. Furthermore, from the assessment, it was determined that the identification of gaps gauges a medical institution’s readiness to create and execute technological advancements on health. Lately, the main issue of concern is the bringing together the information on health records of patients for clinical use in a less technical, economical and time-saving manner. Additionally, the ease of access and utilization of data enhances team coordination as creators prefer being given a referral point concerning the health of a patient to be used as progress is monitored (Drazen & Schneider, 2012).

Context and Objectives of Information Systems

The need for a high demand for a reliable data in countries is of value and as such should exist in its components, both locally and internationally. This is aimed towards moving nations to higher standards where research conducted locally to meet the expectations of the government and the laws that govern the particular research. It is, therefore, important to generate an evaluation system and framework that is capable of planning, managing and regulating continuous assessments by community experts in data and officials of the government agencies (Rosen & Weaver, 2012)

Relevance

The relevance of the health information systems initiative has been conducted in accordance with the proposed policies and recommendations. The evaluation concludes that all factors with the exclusion of an initiative were of importance to the recommendations of the policy of HIS.one initiative, the quality of standards, has not been taken into serious considerations despite requests from the board and management team (Stair & Reynolds, 2013).

This is the capability of the health record systems to meet its goals. However, the eminence of the documents of this project did not add up to the policies needed and as such challenged the evaluation in starting basis for this assessment. This was particularly in respect to the explanation of important indicators of performance and establishment of benchmarks and targets to help in monitoring system enactment. Therefore, if either of the performance indicators is missing, the evaluation of the impact of health records is a daunting task (Street & Manning, 2013).

Most HIS lack the necessary capitals for processing information services and as a result replicating low priorities in managements. Additionally, there is an inadequacy in technical, material and human resources that are needed in the working of the HIS, compounded with the few skills persons trained in the required procedures. Therefore, for sustainability matters, the availability of resources and finances to fund this project in recruiting the appropriate number of staff and computers are necessary. Sustainability is actually improved by the active participation of everyone in all steps of the advancement and depends on maintaining a constant workforce and refining of their skills (Moldan & Hák, 2012).

Criteria for Evaluating Health Information Systems

The lack of evaluation criteria used in assessing the executed HIS is still a huge failing in the strategy and implementation in the health sector. The probability of designers knowing which methods are effective than the other and why certain criterions thrive when they do not evaluate their systems is minimal. Therefore, evaluating any intervention needs not take place at the execution stage only but also well connected with the design and development of the system since it is imperative assuming that HIS features will be carried out as stipulated (Friedman & Huldtgren, 2013). Evidently, in many situations instructions on health do not go as planned and as such the people responsible should guarantee its safe implementation lest they are held liable. However, this is only achievable through evaluation which requires the preparation of a good design of HIS which sets the regulations followed in assessing the accomplishments or disappointments of a system. Additionally, affirming the mechanism on evaluation helps in avoiding the rationalization of HIS and as such questions related to this design becomes simpler to answer (Adam & Bennett, 2012).

Applications of Information on Health Systems

The evaluation criteria observed to help in the achievement of this objective are the objectives and policies together with the technical,financial,political and administrative viability of the HIS design.

The evaluation lays emphasis on the following recommendations to improve the credibility of Health information system Policy (Middleton & Zhang, 2013).

They include;

The need for the establishment of a central data source is to enable simplicity in accessing data and guaranteeing the security of statistics.

The guidance on publishing facts as provided for in the HIS guidelines and relevant existing regulations. This serves to procure the rights of the clients without a compromise on their development.

The need for storage of all records in password guarded electronic gadgets to prevent falling into the hands of unauthorized people.

The records of patients who pass out in medical centers should be stored for at least a decade provided space is available unless specified otherwise.

Rules should be passed on the authority capable of destroying medical records.

It is important to share all data from social and health welfare system with stakeholders. This will improve credibility and accountability and as a result winning over the trust of the public

The need to impose laws which stipulate the measure of accessing health databases

Security measures should be assured for health information in relation to storage, brokerage, and possession.

The establishment of fines and penalties when health-related data are violated.

Conclusion:

The evaluation, therefore, concludes that through the collection of data, integration, data quality enhancement, data analysis and interpretation, problem-solving skills and teamwork are the most culpable ways of maximizing HIS. Furthermore, In relation to the health information systems, the evaluation states that continual monitoring, regulation, and updating of this scheme would service in the provision of quality medical services to the citizens of the affected locality. Additionally, the evaluation also supports the fact that the challenges facing the health sector are due to the failures of the full enactment of the HIS stipulated guidelines, which when conformed to will make life a lot easier. Emphasis was also laid on the role played by HIS in a positive manner in relation to the public and private sectors together with the organizations and it was observed that the impact was of great value. The relevance, sustainability, and effectiveness of health information systems is also an issue of consideration given that the policy has to be evaluated and its subsequent enactment observed. Inferably, to achieve the objectives of HIS which include the regulation and monitoring of tendencies of healthcare systems, the reliability of data and its associated elements and synchronization of services, a practical and effective system has to be adopted.

Contributions of the Health Information Systems

References:

Adam, T., Hsu, J., de Savigny, D., Lavis, J. N., Røttingen, J. A., & Bennett, S. (2012). Evaluating health systems strengthening interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: are we asking the right questions? Health Policy and Planning, 27(suppl 4), iv9-iv19.

Craglia, M., & Maheswaran, R. (Eds.). (2016). GIS in public health practice. CRC press.

Drazen, E. L., Metzger, J. B., Ritter, J. L., & Schneider, M. K. (2012). Patient care information systems: successful design and implementation. Springer Science & Business Media.

Friedman, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., Borning, A., & Huldtgren, A. (2013). Value sensitive design and information systems. In Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory (pp. 55-95). Springer Netherlands.

Hafner, T., & Shiffman, J. (2013). The emergence of global attention to health systems strengthening. Health policy and planning, 28(1), 41-50.

Harris, J. R., Burton, P., Knoppers, B. M., Lindpaintner, K., Bledsoe, M., Brookes, A. J. … & Fortier, I. (2012). Toward a roadmap in global biobanking for health. European Journal of Human Genetics, 20(11), 1105-1111.

Kaye, R., Kokia, E., Shalev, V., Idar, D., & Chinitz, D. (2013). Barriers and success factors in health information technology: A practitioner’s perspective. Journal of Management & Marketing in Healthcare.

Kellermann, A. L., & Jones, S. S. (2013). What it will take to achieve the as-yet-unfulfilled promises of health information technology. Health Affairs, 32(1), 63-68.

Koh, H. K., Brach, C., Harris, L. M., & Parchman, M. L. (2013). A proposed ‘health literate care model’would constitute a systems approach to improving patients’ engagement in care. Health Affairs, 32(2), 357-367.

Kongstvedt, P. R. (2012). Essentials of managed health care. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Kuperman, G. J., Gardner, R. M., & Pryor, T. A. (2013). HELP: a dynamic hospital information system. Springer Science & Business Media.

Mair, F. S., May, C., O’Donnell, C., Finch, T., Sullivan, F., & Murray, E. (2012). Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 90(5), 357-364.

Middleton, B., Bloomrosen, M., Dente, M. A., Hashmat, B., Koppel, R., Overhage, J. M. … & Zhang, J. (2013). Enhancing patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: recommendations from AMIA. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(e1), e2-e8.

Moldan, B., Janoušková, S., & Hák, T. (2012). How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators, 17, 4-13.

Mphatswe, W., Mate, K. S., Bennett, B., Ngidi, H., Reddy, J., Barker, P. M., & Rollins, N. (2012). Improving public health information: a data quality intervention in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 90(3), 176-182.

Padhy, R. P., Patra, M. R., & Satapathy, S. C. (2012). Design and implementation of a cloud-based rural healthcare information system model. Univers J Appl Comput Sci Technol, 2(1), 149-157.

Rechel, B., Mladovsky, P., Ingleby, D., Mackenbach, J. P., & McKee, M. (2013). Migration and health in an increasingly diverse Europe. The Lancet, 381(9873), 1235-1245.

Rosen, M. A., Hunt, E. A., Pronovost, P. J., Federowicz, M. A., & Weaver, S. J. (2012). In situ simulation in continuing education for the health care professions: a systematic review. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 32(4), 243-254.

Stair, R., & Reynolds, G. (2013). Principles of information systems. Cengage Learning.

Street, R. L., Gold, W. R., & Manning, T. R. (2013). Health promotion and interactive technology: Theoretical applications and future directions. Routledge.

Yen, P. Y., & Bakken, S. (2012). Review of health information technology usability study methodologies. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19(3), 413-422.