Part 6: Evaluation Plan

Part 6: Evaluation Plan

In this part of the Evaluation Project, you construct an evaluation plan by aggregating all of your work on the project thus far into one cohesive document. The document should contain your PICO question, literature review (with summary table), evaluation methodology, and evaluation tool.

To prepare:

• Consider the issues or concerns you might have when developing an evaluation plan. Reflect on the ethical issues you and your colleagues identified in the Week 9 Discussion.
• Reflect on potential limitations and opportunities (Note: This topic will be addressed in the Week 10 Discussion).

To complete Part 6 of the Evaluation Project:

By Day 7 of Week 10

In no more than 10 pages, aggregate all of your work on the Evaluation Project so far into a single document. This document should contain:

1)       Your PICO question (See Attached PDF File)

2)       An explanation of the goals of your evaluation plan

3)       Literature review (with summary table as an appendix) (See Attached PDF File)

4)       Evaluation methodology (including research design) (See Attached PDF File)

5)       Evaluation tool (See Attached PDF File)

6)       A description of any ethical issues or concerns you may have with implementing your plan and how you could handle them if they arose (see the assignment on “Evaluations and Ethics”)

7)       A summary of the criteria you will use to define the success of your plan and how you will disseminate findings

8)       An outline of limitations to the scope of the plan and opportunities resulting from your evaluation plan (Note: based on week 10 discussion post on Identification of Opportunities and Limitations)

Required Readings

Friedman, C. P., & Wyatt, J. C. (2010). Evaluation methods in biomedical informatics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

• Chapter 12, “Proposing and Communicating the Results of Evaluation Studies: Ethical, Legal, and Regulatory Issues” (pp. 338–361) 

This chapter covers both how to write a proposal to conduct an evaluation and how to present the findings. It highlights the importance of conforming to legal, regulatory, and ethical standards in the evaluation and write-up.

Berner, E. S. (2008). Ethical and legal issues in the use of health information technology to improve patient safety. HEC Forum, 20(3), 243–258.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 In this article, the author outlines key ethical and legal issues that need to be considered when using health information technology. These include issues with the establishment of a standard of care, increased availability of patient information, accuracy of information, the effectiveness of user training, and the fulfillment of informed consent obligations.

Goldstein, M. M. (2010). Health information technology and the idea of informed consent. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38(1), 27–35.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 This article details the reasons behind the policy of informed consent and the challenges posed to providing privacy by electronic health records and the ease of gaining access to confidential patient information.

Goodman, K. W. (2010). Ethics, information technology, and public health: New challenges for the clinician-patient relationship. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38(1), 58–63.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 The focus of this article is the challenge facing health care personnel in balancing the privacy of patients and the need to perform research on public health issues. The author discusses whether there is a moral obligation for patients and clinicians to be willing to share information for the “greater good.”

Goodman, K. W., Berner, E. S., Dente, M. A., Kaplan, B., Koppel, R., Rucker, D., et al. (2011). Challenges in ethics, safety, best practices, and oversight regarding HIT vendors, their customers, and patients: A report of an AMIA special task force. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 18(1), 77–81.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 This article highlights recommendations by an AMIA special task force that analyzed ethical and safety issues dealing with the increased use of HIT systems. The recommendations covered such areas as the need for HIT regulation, the ability to provide ethics training to vendors, and organizational commitment to placing patient safety as the highest priority.

Nykänen, P., Brender, J., Talmon, J., de Keizer, N., Rigby, M., Beuscart-Zephir, M. C., & Ammenwerth. E. (2011). Guideline for good evaluation practice in health informatics (GEP-HI). International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80(12), 815–827.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 In this article, the authors highlight their efforts to develop a good practice guideline to plan and perform evaluation studies in health informatics. The authors put forth a list of sixty issues to function as a guideline for good evaluation practices.

Rothstein, M. A. (2011). Currents in contemporary bioethics: Physicians’ duty to inform patients of new medical discoveries: The effect of health information technology. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 39(4), 690–693.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

The authors of this article analyze the duty of physicians to inform patients of relevant medical developments following their episode of care. Additionally, the authors make recommendations for promoting recognition of physicians’ duty to notify patients of new medical discoveries applicable to their health.

Rothstein, M. A. (2010). The Hippocratic bargain and health information technology. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38(1), 7–13.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 This article highlights the sensitive nature of much of the information contained in Electronic Health Records and its current availability to a wide range of individuals. The author calls for the development of policy to protect the privacy of patients. He suggests allowing the segmentation of patient information so that the majority of sensitive information is difficult to access.