Case studies are valuable tools in academics as well as in professional practice. Case studies illuminate how products or services can be applied, or how innovation or disruption can be managed. Case studies enable learners and practitioners to apply critical thinking while finding ways to develop solutions to problems. 

Much like travelers might apply the lessons learned from previous visitors to their own plans to visit destinations, case studies can help researchers and practitioners to develop plans, either by applying lessons learned from past shared experiences or by practicing analysis skills necessary to develop effective plans. Similarly, case studies can help those developing health information technology (HIT) evaluation plans by guiding their application of a specific evaluation model to their own plans.

Using the Triangle Model – the health informatics evaluation model and one of the case studies (from chapters 6 to 12 – attached) compare this to other potentially applicable models like the sociotechnical model, the Participatory Model for Multi-Document Health Information Summarization, and the Software Quality Evaluation Models.

Select a case from chapters 6 through 12 of the Lorenzi text that will serve as the basis for your evaluation plan.

  • To maximize your benefit from this project, consider selecting a case study that is relevant to a healthcare organization with which you are involved.
  • Review the research models covered in the Week 2 Learning Resources.
  • Consider the key points of each and when they would be the most appropriate choice for an evaluation of your selected case.

In a 3- to 4-page, address the following:

  • Provide a brief, 1- to 2-paragraph summary of your selected case.
  • Describe the model selected for your evaluation of the case study you selected.
  • Justify your choice by comparing your selected model to at least three of the other models presented in this week’s reading.

References

Lorenzi, N. M., Ash, J., Einbinder, J., McPhee, W., & Einbinder, L. (Eds.). (2005). Transforming health care through information (2nd ed.). Springer.

  • Chapter 6, “Bar      Coding: It’s Hard to Kill a Hippo” (pp. 65–68)
  • Chapter 7,      “Developing an Emergency Department Information System” (pp. 69–79)
  • Chapter 8,      “Implementation of OpChart in West Medical Building” (pp. 81–91)
  • Chapter 9,      “Development of the Scientific Computing Center at Vanderbilt University”      (pp. 92–100)
  • Chapter 10, “Early      Implementation Problems of an Integrated Information Systems Within the      White Mountain University Health System” (pp. 101–113)
  • Chapter 11,      “Implementation of a Web-Based Incident-Reporting System at Legendary      Health System” (pp. 114–120)
  • Chapter 12, “Managing Change: Analysis of      a Hypothetical Case” (pp. 121–135)

McGonigle, D., & Mastrian, K. G. (2018). Nursing informatics and the foundation of knowledge (4th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning.

Tilley, S. (2020). Systems analysis and design (12th ed.). Cengage.

Please feel free to add other peer-reviewed resources in-text citation in this assignment.

6
Bar Coding: It’s Hard to Kill a Hippo

Margaret Keller, Beverly Oneida, and Gale McCarty

For years, the quality improvement committee (QIC) at University Hospital had been
collecting incident reports documenting errors in patient ID, medication administra-
tion, and specimen collection. QIC became interested in the possibility of utilizing bar
code technology to enhance patient care by decreasing these types of errors. After
failing in an effort 2 years earlier, a bar coding project team was built consisting of rep-
resentatives from admitting, pharmacy, clinical labs, clinical engineering, medical center
computing (MCC), hospital procurement, operations improvement, quality improve-
ment, and health unit coordination. The project was defined and divided into three
phases for ease of implementation and cost control. The team decided to start with the
least expensive and least controversial project, replacement of the “B-plates.” These
plates are the embossed, credit card–like plates used to stamp patient ID information
on all hospital and major procedure documentation and on ID bracelets. The Address-
ograph typeface embossing machines used to make the patient ID blue plates
were known as “hippos,” because of their resemblance to the open mouth of a
hippopotamus.”

Valentine’s Day 2001

“One step forward and two steps back . . . ,” mused the usually optimistic Janet Erwin,
director of value analysis and operations improvement, who was beginning to worry
about the timeline she had set for implementation of phase I of her bar coding project.
As the strains of her singing Valentine faded and the February 14 meeting began in
earnest, she reviewed the phase 1 goal: replacement of the B-plate system of inpatient
ID with bar coding technology in order to provide accurate and legible patient ID
information at the time a patient presents to the health system for admission or for
extended periods of care. The requirements for the bar coding project are:

• Use patient ID technology to support bar code and/or radiofrequency applications
to enhance patient safety and to increase staff efficiency

• Limit noise production on patient care units
• Eliminate hand writing of patient ID
• Use technology that supports a secure patient ID band system based on patient age
• Eliminate the need to replace patient ID bands when a patient transfers from unit

to unit

65

LTF6 10/11/2004 8:42 AM Page 65

Co
py
ri
gh
t
©
2
00
5.
S
pr
in
ge
r.
A
ll
r
ig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Ma
y
no
t
be
r
ep
ro
du
ce
d
in
a
ny
f
or
m
wi
th
ou
t
pe
rm
is
si
on
f
ro
m
th
e
pu
bl
is
he
r,
e
xc
ep
t
fa
ir
u
se
s
pe
rm

it
te
d
un
de
r
U.
S.
o
r

ap
pl
ic
ab
le
c
op
yr
ig
ht
l
aw
.

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 3/9/2022 6:29 AM via WALDEN
UNIVERSITY
AN: 145750 ; Nancy M. Lorenzi, Joan S. Ash, Jonath

2/24/22, 12:48 PM Rubric Detail – Blackboard Learn

https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/bbgs-deep-links-BBLEARN/app/course/rubric?course_id=_16936340_1&rubric_id=_2920725_1 1/5

Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

  Excellent Good Fair Poor

Choose an
evaluation
model for
application to
selected case
study, and
compare to
other applicable
models.

23 (23%) – 25
(25%)

The response
clearly
identi�es the
chosen
evaluation
model that is
to be applied
to the case
study and
includes
several clearly
and accurately
described
distinguishing
characteristics
of the model
and how these
characteristics
relate to the
environment
and
circumstances
of the case
study.

20 (20%) – 22
(22%)

The response
identi�es the
chosen
evaluation
model that is
to be applied
to the case
study and
includes
some
accurately
described
distinguishing
characteristics
of the model
and how
these
characteristics
relate to the
environment
and
circumstances
of the case
study.

18 (18%) – 19
(19%)

The response
identi�es the
chosen
evaluation
model that is
to be applied
to the case
study and
includes a few
distinguishing
characteristics
of the model,
with some
vague or
inaccurate
details about
how these
characteristics
relate to the
environment
and
circumstances
of the case
study.

0 (0%) – 17
(17%)

The response
inaccurately or
incompletely
identi�es the
chosen
evaluation
model that is
to be applied
to the case
study and/or
vaguely or
inaccurately
describes
characteristics
of the model,
or provides
vague or
inaccurate
details about
how these
characteristics
relate to the
environment
and
circumstances
of the case
study.

Name: NURS_6451_Week3_Assignment_Rubric EXIT

Grid View List View

2/24/22, 12:48 PM Rubric Detail – Blackboard Learn

https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/bbgs-deep-links-BBLEARN/app/course/rubric?course_id=_16936340_1&rubric_id=_2920725_1 2/5

  Excellent Good Fair Poor

In 2–3 pages,
address the
following:

Provide a brief,
1- to 2-paragraph
summary of your
selected case.

23 (23%) – 25
(25%)

The response
clearly,
accurately, and
with speci�c
detail
sunmmarizes
the selected
case study.

20 (20%) – 22
(22%)

The response
accurately
summarizes
the selected
case study.

18 (18%) – 19
(19%)

The response
summarizes
the selected
case study
with a few
vague and/or
inaccurate
details.

0 (0%) – 17
(17%)

The response
summarizes
the selected
case study
with important
details that are
omitted or
presented in a
vague and/or
inaccurate
manne

Describe the
model selected
for your
evaluation of the
case study you
selected.

23 (23%) – 25
(25%)

The response
clearly,
accurately, and
with speci�c
detail
describes the
selected model
for evaluation
of the selected