Chapter 2 Discussion Questions
1. Why is healthcare/ clinical experience more important for healthcare CIOs today than
in past years?
It is important for healthcare Chief Information Officers (CIO) today to have
healthcare/clinical experience because they have a big role in overseeing the Health
Information Management department. In a typical Information Technology reporting
structure, the CIO’s responsibility does not only cover technical staff but clinical staff as
well. Glandon, Smaltz, and Slovensky (2008) states that the CIO must possess a good
understanding of the healthcare environment, be an experienced manager, and have
sufficient understanding of information technology to ensure that information systems are
properly planned and implemented (p.33). The CIO must be a well rounded leader, this
role does not only encompass the Information Management aspect of the job but goes
beyond technical expertise such as collaboration, formulation of strategic plan and policy
development to name a few (p. 32-33). As we learned in Chapter 1, one of the categories
of computerized information system in healthcare is clinical information systems; the
CIO is responsible to oversee the operation of this area. To have a CIO with healthcare
experience will be beneficial for the healthcare organization, to ensure effective
management of the clinical information data and processes. The CIO will be an effective
contributor to the planning and design towards an integrated health information system.
As the future evolve, “IM/IT will support care delivery, it will be important for CIOs to
have a clinical as well as a healthcare management background” (Glandon, Smaltz &
Slovensky, 2008, p.34). An article by Glaser and Williams (n.d.) state that “several
aspects of the CIO role have been evolving gradually and will continue to evolve –
gradually (p. 10). They clarified the evolution of “the role of the CIO to include
implementing large-scale initiative management, managing or supporting extensive and
deep process change, and being a true peer and colleague to the clinical staff”. The
change is due to the pressures on healthcare providers to improve quality, safety and
efficiency that can be quantified in the form of performance data and also due to
reimbursements based on performance (p.11).
2. What other factors can increase the size and complexity of the information systems
structure, besides those factors already listed?
The information systems structure are affected by a number of factors
such as degree of centralization throughout the organization, use of in-house developed
systems, use of packaged software and outsourcing (Glandon, Smaltz & Slovensky, 2008,
p. 34-35). Other factors that could complicate information systems structure are:
1.
Variability of the reporting system – depending on the size of the
organization, the amount of responsibility will vary from organization
to organization. The design of the system may affect the degree of
control for a project.
2.
The amount of staff housed within a division – the more staff there is,
the complex it is to define roles.
3.
The amount of role overlapping – this will not only complicate the
process but could also be costly to the organization.
4.
The presence of other governing bodies such as committees. Though the
role of the steering committee is important, increased number of
decision makers can make it difficult to come up with a unified decision
timely.
5.
CIOs lack of knowledge of the organization’s goals and strategic plan –
without this information, it will be difficult to lead and divide tasks
appropriately to the right individual who could effectively perform the
job.
An organized information systems structure is important for the success of an
organization’s health information technology especially for a large organization. The role
of the CIO is critical along with the professional, technical and clerical personnel. Putting
the right individual (knowledgeable, experienced) in each of the roles is necessary.
3. Information systems steering committees are used in most healthcare organizations to
make strategic and budgetary decisions. Do you consider the information systems
steering committees to be a good design? Why or why not?
I consider the information systems steering committees to be a good design. It is
most beneficial for a large health organization and or health system especially when it
comes to integration. Huang, Zmud, and Price (2010) state that “IT steering committees
are frequently advocated as effective governance mechanisms for aligning IT-related
decisions and actions with an organization’s strategic and operational priorities” (p. 290).
Since they make important decisions such as strategies, directions and budget, the role of
the steering committee in ensuring a coordinated health information management system
is important. They are responsible to improve operational and strategic effectiveness and
serve as a link between the end-users (Glandon, Smaltz & Slovensky, 2008, p. 36). The
presence of the steering committee will ensure that each of the system’s departments is
represented and their skills and expertise are used towards proper planning and
implementation. Without steering committees, ‘… individual managers are left to resolve
isolated issues as they arise, and those individual actions can often be at odds with each
other…’ (Weill & Ross, 2005, p.26).
References
Glandon, G. L., Smaltz, D. H., & Slovensky, D. J. (2008). Austin and Boxerman’s
information systems for healthcare management (7th ed.). Chicago, IL: Health
Administration Press.
Glaser, J. P., Williams, R. B. (nd). The definitive evolution of the role of the cio. Journal
of Healthcare Information Management. 21(1), 9-11. Retrieved from
http://www.himss.org/files/HIMSSorg/content/files/03_column_Leadership.pdf
Huang, R., Zmud, R.W., Price, R. L. (2010). Influencing the effectiveness of IT
governance practices through steering committees and communication policies.
European Journal of Information Systems. 19, 288-302.
Weill, P., Ross, J.W. (2005). A matrixed approach to designing IT governance. Sloan
Management Review 46(2), 26-34.