Technologies in Healthcare Delivery - Special Academic Support

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!

Technologies in Healthcare Delivery

Table of Contents

Introduction
Mistakes in the Case
Recommendations and Rationale
Conclusion
References

Introduction

To improve patient satisfaction, the healthcare industry has implemented cutting-edge IT initiatives. Businesses that invest in IT initiatives gain access to strategic tools that increase productivity and speed up the completion of critical tasks. To capitalize on new technologies, organizational management is critical for successful project planning, project execution, and organizational change. The budget and timeline must be kept within the predetermined parameters for any IT project to succeed. The case study memorial health system computerized provider order entry (CPOE) implementation highlights some of the mistakes made by the projects management teams, which led to the projects failure.

Mistakes in the Case

The case study demonstrates that the CPOE project did not start with well-defined goals. The primary motivation for developing the CPOE system was to reduce prescription errors. Despite having a vested interest in the healthcare system, community independent healthcare providers did not see how the new system would streamline their processes and reduce the number of preventable medical errors. Those involved in the project expected the new system to be costly and time-consuming.

Another challenge was the lack of support from company executives and associated stakeholders. The previous chief executive officer (CEO) and chief information officer had backed the initiative, but the active CEO, Liu, had different plans. Liu was not entirely sold on the idea and expressed his reservations. The board members were concerned about losing a large sum of money if the project was abandoned, so they assigned him to oversee its management. Following Lius appointment, Dr. Sparks, a vocal opponent of Lius initiative, was named chief information officer. Because of this lack of leadership support, he appointed Sally Martin to lead the initiative, demonstrating that Liu was no longer in charge. His failure to follow Martins advice to ensure the projects success after that demonstrated that he was not fully invested in it. In the case study, those involved in healthcare delivery and delivery professionals were dissatisfied with the new organizational structure. Many of the CPOE projects stakeholders and vendors did not put in the required effort, which contributed to the projects failure.

Upper management did not adequately assess the projects complexity, scope, and time commitment. Some board members were skeptical of the leaders proposed timeline for CPOE clearance. Finally, Martin, the project manager, submitted a revised budget that included extra costs for integration software that had not been budgeted for previously. The CPOE system took longer than expected to complete, causing a delay. Several factors contributed to its demise, including the need to adjust the projects budget and timeline.

Recommendations and Rationale

For the long-term success of the CPOE program, the managers needed to promote the projects objectives. The projects benefits included the possibility of fewer and less severe medical errors, leading to increased efficiency and quality of services. More people would be willing to work on the project if the objectives and benefits were clearer and communicated throughout the institution. Furthermore, they should have ensured that the project was led by a competent and committed chief information officer. Leadership truly invested in the project will make the difficult decisions required to complete the project. Stakeholders must understand the implications of new technological developments, and training programs should provide this information before implementation. Because most people are hesitant to change because they do not understand the project well enough, this would have aided in overcoming organizational inertia. To summarize, it is best to divide the project into smaller, more manageable chunks and to devote the necessary attention and resources to each phase. Open communication between project managers and upper management can be beneficial in certain situations.

Critical thinking, risk assessment and management, and team leadership are among the most valuable skills in project selection, implementation, and evaluation. However, effective communication may be more important than these other skills. Without strong communication skills, project managers cannot effectively lead their teams or ensure everyone is meeting their responsibilities (Alam et al., 2018). Project managers are responsible for various activities as part of their responsibilities. However, most of their time should be spent ensuring everyone works in the same direction with the project. A project managers ability to collect and disseminate that data to the appropriate stakeholders is critical to their success (Laukka et al., 2020). Without it, team members risk duplicating efforts, missing critical project milestones, wasting critical resources, and allowing the projects scope to stray from the original vision. Regular occurrence of these trends results in delaying or total failure of projects.

Adopting new technologies in a sizeable healthcare institution should be a timely process. Leaders and associated stakeholders must have a well-laid plan outlining how different phases should be undertaken. The selection and implementation are the most important, requiring informed leaders, open communication in the whole institution, and clear objectives for the associated project. The whole can welcome the projects new change, and frictions like those experienced in the case are avoided.

Conclusion

Integrating technologies in healthcare delivery are becoming more common, improving healthcare outcomes and quality. Medical facilities, however, must exercise caution when selecting, implementing, and evaluating them. Errors, such as failing to communicate the desired outcome and poor management, may cause a project to fail. If the changes are to have a long-term impact, all impacted personnel should be consulted at all levels and given ample time to express their concerns for the long-term success of projects in healthcare.

References

Alam, M. M., Malik, H., Khan, M. I., Pardy, T., Kuusik, A., & Le Moullec, Y. (2018). A survey on the roles of communication technologies in IoT-based personalized healthcare applications. IEEE Access, 6, 36611-36631. Web.

Laukka, E., Huhtakangas, M., Heponiemi, T., & Kanste, O. (2020). Identifying the roles of healthcare leaders in HIT implementation: a scoping review of the quantitative and qualitative evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(8), 2865. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!