MHS5530 Nova Southeastern Telemedicine for Rural Based Health Facility PPT

/in /by

Once choosing a scenario from the Learning Resources you will develop a PowerPoint presentation to provide an overview of how information technology will address issues in that organization(s)/setting. You understand that for such an expensive and complex recommendation, in-depth research must be conducted along with a high level leadership plan as to how you would recommend approaching the initiative along the Systems Development Lifecycle steps: 1) Acquire; 2) Plan for; 3) Implement; and 4) Support the technology solution.

Chosen Scenario: Telemedicine for Rural-Based Health Facility

Canon hospital is a 189-bed hospital in rural Texas. The hospital is approximately 100 miles and 150 miles away from two major medical centers of excellence in Texas. As the CIO of Canon Hospital, you are aware that there are capabilities to do telemedicine programs with tertiary care centers. Two of the senior medical staff in the critical care and neurology departments at Canon Hospital have approached you to investigate telemedicine capabilities related to the management of ICU patients and the emergency management of patients presenting with stroke symptoms.

These medical leaders would like to ideally preserve the appropriate services for ICU patients and rehabilitative services for stroke patients in the canon hospital community. They recognize that portions of these treatment plans must include certified critical care and stroke certified providers from a tertiary care center. They have ask you to examine both the business and technical aspects of establishing telemedicine programs with one or two of the tertiary care centers who have certified specialists in critical care and stroke certified physicians who can administer TPA and other urgent stroke treatments.

Currently Canon hospital is transferring over half of the ICU patients and virtually all of the patients who are presenting with stroke symptoms to these to either of these tertiary centers. There is little to no follow up on those patients with regard to treatment plans or services. In many cases, patients and caregivers are relocated for step down and rehabilitative care to facilities outside of the Canon hospital area. This creates both high level of dissatisfaction for patients and families and revenue loss for canon hospital and its associated rehabilitation facilities.

Assignment:

In a 15- to 20-slide PowerPoint presentation, including extensive speaker notes and 5–6 peer reviewed references applied using APA Format:

  • Analyze the problems and opportunities that the technology is aimed to address in this organization(s)/setting
  • Critique any legal and/or regulatory concerns related to using technology in this organizations(s)/setting
  • Acquisition: Explain your recommended steps in the systematic evaluation and acquisition of the technology
    • SWOT summary
    • Vendor partner recommendations
    • Process to evaluate vendors
  • Planning: Develop a Project Charter for how you would plan for implementing this technology.
    • Scope of the project/program
    • Key stakeholders
    • Risks and mitigation plans
    • Financial justification
  • Implementation:
    • Change Management Strategy
    • Security and Privacy Plan
    • Data sharing, systems integration needs
    • Use of cost reducing emerging technology platforms
  • Support and sustainability:
    • Financial sustainment plan
    • End user technical support plan
    • Potential fit with emerging industry technologies
  • Briefly address any competitive advantage that this technology might provide for the selected organization(s)

GRADING RUBRIC:

EXCELLENT – above expectations GOOD – met expectations FAIR – below expectations POOR – significantly below expectations or missing
Introduction

Points:

Points Range: 13 (7.43%) – 14 (8%)

The introduction shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking concerning problems and opportunities that the technology is aimed to address, the legal and/or regulatory concerns are also fully addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 11 (6.29%) – 12 (6.86%)

The introduction fully addresses the problems and opportunities that the technology is aimed to address as well as the legal and/or regulatory concerns.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 10 (5.71%) – 10 (5.71%)

The introduction lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking concerning problems and opportunities that the technology is aimed to address and the legal and/or regulatory concerns.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 9 (5.14%)

The introduction does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses problems and opportunities that the technology is aimed to address and the legal and/or regulatory concerns.

Feedback:

Acquisition

Points:

Points Range: 25 (14.29%) – 28 (16%)

The explanation of recommended steps in the systematic evaluation and acquisition of the technology shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.
Topics of the SWOT analysis, vendor partner recommendations, and process to evaluate vendors are all discussed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 22 (12.57%) – 24 (13.71%)

The explanation fully addresses the recommended steps in the systematic evaluation and acquisition of the technology.
Topics of the SWOT analysis, vendor partner recommendations, and process to evaluate vendors are all discussed.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 20 (11.43%) – 21 (12%)

The explanation of recommended steps in the systematic evaluation and acquisition of the technology lacks depth, breadth, triangulation and clarity in critical thinking.
One or two topics of the SWOT analysis, vendor partner recommendations, and process to evaluate vendors are not discussed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 19 (10.86%)

The explanation does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the recommended steps in the systematic evaluation and acquisition of the technology.

Feedback:

Planning

Points:

Points Range: 25 (14.29%) – 28 (16%)

The project charter shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.
Topics of the scope of the project/program, key stakeholders, risk and mitigation plans, and financial justification are all addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 22 (12.57%) – 24 (13.71%)

The project charter is fully addressed.
Topics of the scope of the project/program, key stakeholders, risk and mitigation plans, and financial justification are all addressed.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 20 (11.43%) – 21 (12%)

The project charter lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.
One or two topics of the scope of the project/program, key stakeholders, risk and mitigation plans, and financial justification are not addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 19 (10.86%)

The project charter does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses topics of the scope of the project/program, key stakeholders, risk and mitigation plans, and financial justification.

Feedback:

Implementation

Points:

Points Range: 25 (14.29%) – 28 (16%)

The implementation plan for the technology shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.
Topics of change management strategy, security and privacy plan, data sharing, systems integration needs and use of cost reducing emerging technology platforms are all addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 22 (12.57%) – 24 (13.71%)

The implementation plan for the technology is fully addressed.
Topics of change management strategy, security and privacy plan, data sharing, systems integration needs and use of cost reducing emerging technology platforms are all addressed.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 20 (11.43%) – 21 (12%)

The implementation plan for the technology lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.
One or two topics of change management strategy, security and privacy plan, data sharing, systems integration needs and use of cost reducing emerging technology platforms are not addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 19 (10.86%)

The implementation plan for the technology does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses topics of change management strategy, security and privacy plan, data sharing, systems integration needs and use of cost reducing emerging technology platforms.

Feedback:

Support and Sustainability

Points:

Points Range: 25 (14.29%) – 28 (16%)

The support and sustainability plan shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.
Topics of financial sustainment, end user technical support and potential fit with emerging industry technologies are all addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 22 (12.57%) – 24 (13.71%)

The support and sustainability plan is fully addressed.
Topics of financial sustainment, end user technical support and potential fit with emerging industry technologies are all addressed.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 20 (11.43%) – 21 (12%)

The support and sustainability plan lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.
One or two topics of financial sustainment, end user technical support and potential fit with emerging industry technologies are not addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 19 (10.86%)

The support and sustainability plan does not address (zero points) or poorly address the topics of financial sustainment, end user technical support and potential fit with emerging industry technologies

Feedback:

Competitive Advantage

Points:

Points Range: 12 (6.86%) – 13 (7.43%)

The description of the competitive advantage of the technology shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 11 (6.29%) – 11 (6.29%)

The description of the competitive advantage of the technology is fully addressed.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully addressed.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 10 (5.71%) – 10 (5.71%)

The description of the competitive advantage of the technology lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 9 (5.14%)

The description of the competitive advantage of the technology is not discussed (zero points) or is poorly discussed.

Feedback:

PPT Presentation

Points:

Points Range: 16 (9.14%) – 18 (10.29%)

Presentation follows the Presentation Guidelines and Tips and uses a combination of three to four text, photos, graphs, maps, websites, or visual elements to convey the information.
Presentation is 15–20 slides.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 15 (8.57%) – 15 (8.57%)

Presentation follows the Presentation Guidelines and Tips and but uses only one or two elements of text, photos, graphs, maps, websites, or visual elements to convey the information.
Presentation is 15–20 slides.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 13 (7.43%) – 14 (8%)

Presentation minimally follows the Presentation Guidelines and Tips and only one or two elements of text, photos, graphs, maps, websites, or visual elements to convey the information.
Presentation is less than15 or greater than 20 slides.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (6.86%)

Presentation does not follow the Presentation Guidelines and Tips and only one or two elements of text, photos, graphs, maps, websites, or visual elements to convey the information.
Presentation is less than15 or greater than 20 slides.

Feedback:

Writing

Points:

Points Range: 16 (9.14%) – 18 (10.29%)

The Speaker Notes are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate level writing style.
The work is supported by the Learning Resources and more than three additional scholarly sources.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 15 (8.57%) – 15 (8.57%)

The Speaker Notes are mostly consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling, APA, and writing errors.
The work is supported by the Learning Resources and at least three additional scholarly sources.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 13 (7.43%) – 14 (8%)

The Speaker Notes are somewhat consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling, APA, and writing errors.
The work is supported by the Learning Resources and less than three additional scholarly sources.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (6.86%)

The Speaker Notes are well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or shows heavy reliance on quoting.
The work is not supported by the Learning Resources or additional scholarly sources.

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"

ORDER NOW