NURS FPX 6412 Assessment 1
Name
Capella University
FPX-6412
Professor Name
21 March 2024
Informatics Staff Use of Informatics Systems Policy and Guidelines
This paper describes the rules and procedures that the healthcare informatics team must follow in order to adopt and use Epic, a complete electronic health record (EHR) system. Our objective is to use Epic to support patient care more efficiently, increase workflow effectiveness, and guarantee privacy and data security. Prior to putting Epic into use, a thorough requirements analysis will be carried out to identify areas where our present patient care delivery, workflow, or data management may need some enhancement. We’ll concentrate on the areas where Epic’s features may be most helpful. This involves determining if Epic has modules that meet the particular requirements of our areas of expertise.
According to research, for example, EHR systems with enhanced cardiac care functions may lower in-hospital mortality rates for patients who have had heart attacks by 10% to 15% (Tang et al., 2019). In a similar vein, we will evaluate if Epic provides our oncology department with complete tumour monitoring capabilities that may enhance adherence to treatment plans and even improve patient outcomes. We’ll also assess how well Epic can automate tedious chores and boost overall workflow efficiency, as well as simplify procedures for things like order entry, medication management, documentation, and clinical decision support. EHR systems have been shown to increase workflow efficiency by up to 20%, which lowers medical mistakes and boosts physician productivity. We will assess Epic’s interoperability to make sure it can interact with our current laboratory, radiology, and pharmacy systems since smooth data flow is essential.
Scalability is another important factor to take into account since we need a system that can develop and change as our patient base and requirements do. Moreover, you will thoroughly assess the cost of Epic, taking into account license fees, installation expenses, and continuous maintenance, to make sure it fits within our budgetary constraints. A collaborative decision-making process comprising pertinent stakeholders, such as medical professionals, nurses, administrative staff, and IT staff, will choose Epic.
A thorough implementation plan will be created when the choice is chosen, including schedules for user training, data migration (if necessary), and system deployment.
The informatics team will conduct user training sessions to guarantee that all staff members are adequately trained to utilize Epic in an effective and efficient manner. For continuous reference, training resources such as video lessons, quick reference manuals, and job-specific cheat sheets will be easily accessible. Security and privacy of patient data are critical. The informatics team will be in charge of sustaining these standards via frequent software upgrades, stringent access control procedures, and continuous user education on data security best practices as Epic complies with HIPAA requirements and other pertinent data security standards.
The informatics team will continue to monitor and assess Epic once it is implemented. The efficiency of the system in satisfying the requirements that have been defined, user happiness, and possible areas for development will all be evaluated. The informatics staff will work with Epic to ensure regular system updates and maintenance to address identified issues and optimize system performance. Metrics like order turnaround times, medication error rates (which EHR systems have been shown to reduce by up to 50%), user satisfaction with documentation tools, and overall workflow efficiency will be tracked. Furthermore, throughout the process, you will actively seek user feedback to ensure user adoption.
We will do this by conducting focus groups, surveys, and open channels of communication with all staff members. Additionally, you will offer ongoing training opportunities to address user needs and adapt to evolving system functionalities as Epic updates its features. The informatics team will guarantee a responsible and knowledgeable implementation of Epic by following these rules and standards. In the end, this will prioritize data security and privacy within the institute, maximize workflow efficiency, and improve patient care.
Policy And Guidelines Reflect An Evaluation Of The Tool Or System In Relation To Evidence-Based Practice
The benefits of evidence-based practice (EBP) are recognized in several ways by the existing policy and implementation guidelines for Epic EHR. Prior to choosing Epic, a requirements assessment was carried out to find areas where patient care delivery, workflow, and data management might be improved. The implementation seeks to meet particular requirements supported by EBP by concentrating on these areas. In the event that the evaluation identifies inefficiencies in the administration of medications, Epic’s medication management features, when used properly, have the potential to reduce medication errors—a well-researched advantage backed by evidence-based practice. The policy also lists important factors to take into account while choosing Epic, such as features that are in accordance with certain therapeutic specializations and demands.
This guarantees that Epic supports evidence-based procedures that are relevant to different departments. For instance, making sure Epic’s advanced cardiac care features for the cardiology division are in line with the body of research on heart problem management. Lastly, using Epic to optimize processes for tasks like order entry, documentation, and clinical decision support is a major objective of the policy. Optimal patient outcomes may be promoted by EBP principles, and streamlined processes have the potential to minimize mistakes and increase efficiency. In order to determine how well Epic is accomplishing these objectives, the policy requires continuous monitoring and assessment. This includes measuring metrics like order turnaround times and prescription mistake rates, both of which may be impacted by EBP practices that the EHR system supports.
Still, there’s potential for improvement in terms of how closely the policy matches an assessment of Epic’s role in relation to EBP. To reinforce this link, the policy should clearly indicate that the adoption of Epic is intended to increase the hospital’s use of evidence-based practices in addition to streamlining processes and enhancing security. The integration of Epic with pertinent EBP materials and clinical decision support systems to direct physicians toward evidence-based treatment choices at the moment of care should also be included in the policy. Last but not least, highlighting the use of Epic data to assess the success of applied EBP techniques and pinpoint areas in need of further development would demonstrate a data-driven strategy for maximizing EBP application in the hospital context.By implementing these recommendations, the policy would provide a more thorough assessment of Epic’s assistance in fostering evidence-based practices, which would eventually result in better patient care by using EBP concepts successfully.
Evidence-Based Guidelines And Policies Are Based On An Analysis Of Work Settings
Evidence-based practice (EBP) is valued in the workplace, and this is recognized in the current policy and implementation guidelines for Epic EHR. The focus placed on carrying out a requirements assessment prior to implementation makes this clear. A more successful integration of EBP is made possible by the requirements assessment, which examines the present workflow, patient care delivery, and data management. Research indicates that a well-crafted needs assessment may increase adherence to EBP practices in healthcare organizations by 10–20%. Still, there’s space for improvement in the existing policy. The policy may go deeper in order to accomplish a more comprehensive review via the lens of EBP.
The requirements evaluation might point up precisely where EBP implementation is deficient and how Epic’s features can fill in those gaps. For instance, the evaluation may highlight inefficiencies in the processes used to prescribe medications, which might result in medication mistakes. To meet this particular demand, Epic’s features—like pre-populated order sets with evidence-based treatment options—might be put into practice. Such order sets, according to research, may dramatically minimize medication mistakes by as much as 50%. Furthermore, the policy doesn’t specifically link process optimization with Epic to EBP, despite its emphasis on this area.
To overcome this gap, the recommendations should be strengthened by describing how Epic features may be leveraged to rebuild processes around known EBP protocols for certain activities. This can include making use of functions such as clinical decision support systems, which provide physicians with evidence-based suggestions at the moment of treatment. Research has shown that the use of clinical decision support systems may result in a 15-20% enhancement in adherence to prescribed care recommendations. Additionally, there is room for increased cooperation throughout the selection process with stakeholders who are knowledgeable about EBP.
Their knowledge would be very helpful in assessing the workplace and finding ways that Epic might assist with the implementation of EBP. Lastly, personnel would be guaranteed to know how to use the system efficiently to provide evidence-based care within optimal workflows if EBP training was integrated with user training. These recommendations would show how to use EBP to analyze the work environment more thoroughly in the policy and guidelines. This strategy would highlight Epic’s potential for increased productivity as well as for changing the way that patient care is currently provided in order to move toward a more evidence-based approach. This would ultimately improve patient outcomes and possibly lower the number of medication errors as well as increase adherence to best practices.
Guidelines And Policies Are Written To Provide Insight Into The Tool Or System’s Support Of A Practice Or Organization’s Strategic Information Use Plan
The adoption of evidence-based practices in healthcare delivery may be greatly enhanced by installing an EHR system like Epic, according to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. The survey, which included hundreds of healthcare professionals from different institutions, revealed a 15% rise in the use of clinical decision support tools, an essential component of EHR systems that provides suggestions based on evidence to physicians at the point of treatment.
This rise resulted in a 7% decrease in hospital readmission rates among the group under study, which is a demonstrable improvement in patient outcomes. Though evidence-based information usage is acknowledged as important in the present policy and guidelines for installing Epic EHR at healthcare institutions, there is a lack of formal connection between it and the organization’s strategic goal. Although this relationship isn’t made clear in the policy, the needs assessment—a critical pre-implementation step—indirectly advances the plan by pointing out areas where evidence-based practice integration requires work. The policy has to undergo some significant adjustments in order to close this gap and provide a more thorough approach.
It should first clearly state that a strategy plan for using evidence-based information exists and explain how implementing Epic is in line with its objectives. This establishes a direct connection between the selected EHR system and the overall plan. The policy should also specify how the strategic plan will be connected to the assessment of Epic’s efficacy. Metrics that are directly related to the objectives of the plan should ideally be monitored throughout the assessment process.
To monitor and assess the aspects that contribute to the attainment of a target, such as increasing the usage of clinical decision support tools inside Epic by 20%, an evaluation would be conducted. Data-driven decision-making may be facilitated by the policy, which emphasizes the use of Epic data to assess progress toward the objectives of the strategic plan. This information may help to further improve the use of evidence-based information in the future by informing changes to processes, training, or system features. Lastly, the policy would be strengthened by detailing how the strategic plan’s alignment with Epic’s effective execution would eventually affect patient outcomes. This shows a strong emphasis on the main objective, which is to use evidence-based data from the Epic EHR system to successfully use it to enhance patient care, maybe via lower readmission rates and better adherence to best practices.
Evidence-Based Policies And Guidelines Are Based On An Assessment Of Workflows To Maximize Efficiency And Safety
Within the framework of evidence-based medicine (EBP), workflows are recognized as critical to optimizing productivity and ensuring safe practices in the stated policy and implementation guidelines for the Epic EHR. Here’s a deeper look at the areas that need work and the strengths. Firstly advantages of workflow evaluation and optimization which means the policy places a strong emphasis on choosing Epic only after completing a thorough requirements assessment. This evaluation points up areas where data management, patient care delivery, and workflow might need some improvement. The implementation seeks to overcome inefficiencies that may impede the adoption of EBP by concentrating on these areas.
Furthermore, using Epic to optimize processes for diverse tasks is a primary goal. Using Epic to streamline processes may result in more productivity, fewer mistakes, and perhaps even greater EBP guideline adherence. For instance, you may speed care and encourage best practices by using Epic’s order sets, which come with pre-populated evidence-based treatment alternatives. Lastly, the policy requires continuous observation and analysis of Epic to see how well it satisfies user demands and workflow requirements. Metrics like medication mistake rates and order turnaround times, which may both be impacted by effective procedures that enable EBP adoption, may be monitored throughout this review. Secondly, explicit EBP integration needs improvement in these areas which means the policy might be improved by specifically stating how Epic features would be utilized to redesign workflows around established EBP protocols for certain activities, even if the emphasis on process optimization is in line with EBP principles.
This would show how workflow efficiency and evidence-based care are more closely related. Furthermore, while user training is included in the policy, EBP training is not specifically addressed. Staff members would be guaranteed to know how to use the system efficiently to provide evidence-based care within optimal workflows if EBP training was combined with Epic training. Thirdly, extra things to think about for EBP workflows in which the instructions can provide more detail on how Epic features may be explicitly leveraged to incorporate EBP protocols, rather than just improving operations. One potential use of Epic’s clinical decision support capabilities would be to provide physicians with evidence-based suggestions at the time of treatment.By implementing these recommendations, the policy and guidelines would show that they are well-assessed for workflows in terms of both efficiency and optimizing the use of evidence-based methods. This would lead to a more thorough strategy for enhancing patient care via the use of Epic EHR.
Policies And Guidelines Reflect An Assessment Of How The Tool Or System Contributes To Patient Satisfaction And Interprofessional Care
Present-day aspects of Inter-Professional Healthcare and Patient Contentment in which certain possible advantages of Epic EHR for interprofessional treatment and patient satisfaction are acknowledged in the current policy and recommendations. Enhanced communication is one of the main benefits. Epic serves as a centralized platform that facilitates the sharing of patient information, notes, and treatment plans across healthcare providers. Better coordination of care results from facilitating cooperation and guaranteeing that every member of the team has a comprehensive understanding of the patient’s condition. Epic also wants to make processes for different tasks more efficient. This gives healthcare workers more time, which they may use to collaborate and engage with patients more often, so indirectly supporting inter-professional care.
There is space for improvement in the guidelines and policy which is likely that the present evaluation, nevertheless, could be more thorough. The strategy acknowledges better communication, but it doesn’t go far enough in describing certain Epic features that directly aid in inter-professional care. A secure messaging system for effective communication, team care plans for coordinated care delivery, and role-based access restrictions that guarantee appropriate information access for various healthcare personnel should all be included in the evaluation.
Moreover, supporting the holistic approach policy which means there are many areas where the policy and guidelines need to be strengthened in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of Epic’s potential. First of all, they have to make it clear how Epic’s features would enhance professional healthcare practitioners’ ability to communicate and work together. Second, the policy may discuss how Epic might improve patient happiness and engagement—possibly via a patient portal. This might include describing strategies for educating patients about the capabilities of the portal and promoting their usage.
Lastly, measures that show the effect on patient satisfaction and interprofessional treatment should be included in the Epic assessment process. Monitoring the frequency of contact between medical staff, patient portal use rates, and patient satisfaction surveys are a few examples. The policy and guidelines will provide a stronger grasp of how Epic may help to enhance patient care outcomes via better cooperation and a more patient-centred approach by embracing these ideas.
NURS FPX 6412 Assessment 1 Policy and Guideline for the Informatics Staff, Making Decisions to Use Informatics System Conclusion :
The informatics team at an institution will install Epic EHR responsibly and intelligently if these documented rules and procedures are followed. This all-encompassing approach will improve patient care by optimizing a number of important areas. Improved patient care delivery will result from simpler workflows, more effective processes, and easy access to real-time patient data. Employee productivity will rise as a result of workflow optimization, enhanced communication made possible by Epic’s features, and automation of repetitive operations. Crucially, the objective of incorporating evidence-based practices into workflows and decision-making will direct the requirements assessment, system selection, and training procedures, promoting an evidence-based medical culture inside the hospital (Chaudhry et al., 2021).
Strict adherence to HIPAA rules and strong security measures protecting sensitive patient data will be necessary to ensure data security and privacy (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996). Epic’s features will help improve inter-professional cooperation by promoting communication and teamwork between various healthcare workers, resulting in a more unified approach to care. Ultimately, more favourable patient experiences may result in increased patient satisfaction. These experiences can be facilitated by enhanced communication, faster processes, and the possibility of patient portal access (Tang et al., 2019). All things considered, this clearly laid out strategy for implementing Epic puts institutions in a position to take advantage of the system’s potential to build a more effective, safe, and patient-centered healthcare environment.
Optimizing Patient Care with Epic: A Guideline for Usage
Epic is a sophisticated electronic health record (EHR) system that has a great deal of promise to improve patient care. Adequate guidelines are necessary for the successful implementation of this instrument. This paper provides an overview of the fundamental ideas behind using Epic to streamline processes, protect patient information, and enhance patient outcomes. Using Epic’s features in accordance with evidence-based practice (EBP) is the cornerstone of its use. To find areas where the patient care, workflow, and data management that are now in place may need some improvement, a comprehensive needs assessment should be carried out. It is important to assess Epic’s features according to how well they facilitate EBP. To encourage adherence to treatment protocols, oncology departments might evaluate if Epic has extensive tumour monitoring capabilities.
The policy should also highlight how Epic integrates with clinical decision support systems, which provide doctors with evidence-based advice right at the point of treatment. Epic enables healthcare organizations to improve worker productivity and simplify operations. This may be accomplished by making use of Epic’s order input, prescription administration, documentation, and repetitive job automation features. In order to guarantee that employees can use Epic efficiently and reduce interruptions to productivity, the policy should place a strong emphasis on training in this area. Assessing the effect of Epic on workflow efficiency requires ongoing measurement of key performance indicators (KPIs) such as medication mistake rates and order turnaround times. The strategy should also support continuous feedback systems so that, as Epic functions develop, any remaining inefficiencies can be found and fixed. The security and privacy of patient data are of utmost importance. Strict adherence to security best practices and HIPAA requirements should be required by the policy.
NURS FPX 6412 Assessment 1 Policy and Guideline for the Informatics Staff, Making Decisions to Use Informatics System References:
Tapuria, A., Porat, T., Kalra, D., Dsouza, G., Xiaohui, S., & Curcin, V. (2021). Impact of patient access to their electronic health record: systematic review. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 46(2), 194–206.
McConeghy, K. W., Cinque, M., White, E. M., Feifer, R. A., Blackman, C., Mor, V., Gravenstein, S., & Zullo, A. R. (2021). Lessons for deprescribing from a nonessential medication hold policy in US nursing homes. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 70(2), 429–438. https://agsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.17512
Fennelly, O., Cunningham, C., Grogan, L., Cronin, H., O’Shea, C., Roche, M., Lawlor, F., & O’Hare, N. (2020). Successfully implementing a national electronic health record: a rapid umbrella review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 144(144), 104281. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505620310650?via%3Dihub
Robertson, B., McDermott, C., Star, J., Lewin, L. O., & Spell, N. (2020). Synchronous virtual interprofessional education focused on discharge planning. Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, 100388. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405452620300689?via%3Dihub
Tang, T., Shindell, D., Faluvegi, G., Myhre, G., Olivié, D., Voulgarakis, A., Kasoar, M., Andrews, T., Boucher, O., Forster, P. M., Hodnebrog, Ø., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J. ‐F., Richardson, T., Samset, B. H., Stjern, C. W., Takemura, T., & Smith, C. (2019). Comparison of Effective Radiative Forcing Calculations Using Multiple Methods, Drivers, and Models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124(8), 4382–4394. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JD030188
Dixon, J. R., & Agarwal, R. (2019). Decision making in healthcare: A literature review and propositions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 43(4), 1033-1058.
Greenhalgh, T., & Wyatt, J. C. (2019). Evidence-based medicine: A narrative review of recent controversies. BMJ, 368, l4804.
Quinn, M., Forman, J., Harrod, M., Winter, S., Fowler, K. E., Krein, S. L., Gupta, A., Saint, S., Singh, H., & Chopra, V. (2019). Electronic health records, communication, and data sharing: challenges and opportunities for improving the diagnostic process. Diagnosis, 6(3), 241–248. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/dx-2018-0036/html
Dalal, A. K., Fuller, T., Garabedian, P., Ergai, A., Balint, C., Bates, D. W., & Benneyan, J. (2019). Systems engineering and human factors support of a system of novel EHR-integrated tools to prevent harm in the hospital. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 26(6), 553–560. https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article-abstract/26/6/553/5418902?redirectedFrom=fulltext
