Peer Review of Workflow Models

/in /by

Peer Review of Workflow Models

In the Week 4 Discussion, you explored the benefits of gaining an outsider’s perspective on a workflow issue or gap you are investigating. It can be equally beneficial to request feedback from others on the accuracy and clarity of a workflow model.

In this Discussion, you and your colleagues critique one another’s Visio drafts of your workflow models that you created for Part 1 of the Course Project and provide feedback on how to make the workflow model more complete. You also receive feedback on your own workflow model and consider additional information that you may need to collect as you conduct your gap analysis. Peer Review of Workflow Models

ORDER A FREE-PLAGIARISM PAPER HERE

To prepare

  • By Day 1 of this week, your Instructor will have assigned you to review two colleague’s Visio drafts. Locate these drafts in Doc Sharing. (Please see the attached files for assigned colleague Visio drafts)
  • Examine each workflow model using the basic requirements outlined in the Course Project. Consider the following:
    • Does each draft use standard Visio workflow shapes for start and end points, basic steps, and decision points?
    • Are all points connected with arrows flowing in the correct direction?
    • Are swimlanes present to identify who completes each task?
  • Carefully read through each workflow model.
    • Does it make sense?
    • What areas are unclear or confusing?
    • Are all decision points adequately explained?
    • What parts need additional detail?
  • Identify at least one additional gap in each workflow. For example, this may be a redundant task, an unnecessary task, an ineffective system or process, or an area where staff need support. What meaningful use objective or objectives are related to the identified gap?With these thoughts in mind:Post by tomorrow 10/04/16, a minimum of 550 words in APA with 2 references, addressing the level one headings below:1) Your reviews of your colleagues’ Visio drafts. Identify any basic requirements (standard workflow shapes, arrow directions, decision points, swimlanes, etc.) that are unmet or need revision. Also identify areas that lack information and what additional detail is necessary to clarify those areas. Peer Review of Workflow Models PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED FILES FOR THE VISIO DRAFT TO REVIEW2) Describe the gap you identified in the workflow and explain how it is related to at least one meaningful use objective.  Required Readings Dennis, A., Wixom, B. H., & Roth, R. M. (2015). Systems analysis and design (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  • Review Chapter 5, “Process Modeling” (pp. 153–186) Helmers, S. (2011). Microsoft Visio 2010 step by step. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
  • Chapter 7, “Adding and Using Hyperlinks” (pp. 215–238)  This chapter includes instructions for adding hyperlinks to a Visio drawing. These can be links to a website, another document, or another Visio page.  
  • Chapter 8, “Sharing and Publishing Diagrams: Part 1” (pp. 239–270)  This chapter introduces how to preview and print a Visio diagram, how to create Visio templates, and how to post a diagram to the Web.  
  • Chapter 10, “Visualizing Your Data” (pp. 299–320)  This chapter describes how a variety of graphics may be used when creating a Visio diagram. It demonstrates how to use existing graphics or how to create customized graphics for a specialized project.  Fickenscher, K., & Bakerman, M. (2011). Process redesign is key to successful IT deployment. Physician Executive, 37(3), 76–79. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.  The authors of this article evaluate how engaging health IT in patient care is a multidisciplinary, multileveled endeavor. Given the collaborative nature of health care organizations, redesigning health delivery processes requires the cooperation of a variety of health care personnel if it is to be successful.McAlearney, A. S., Song, P. H., Robbins, J., Hirsch, A., Jorina, M., Kowalczyk, N., & Chisolm, D. (2010). Moving from good to great in ambulatory electronic health record implementation. Journal for Healthcare Quality, 32(5), 41–50. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.  In this article, the authors describe research into the implementation of EHR systems for use in ambulatory care. They concluded that the difference between good systems and great systems is that great systems have a built-in process that allows for continual optimization over time.  Smaltz, D. H., Callander, R., Turner, M., Kennamer, G., Wurtz, H., Bowen, A., & Waldrum, M. R. (2005). Making sausage—Effective management of enterprise-wide clinical IT projects. Journal of Healthcare Information Management, 19(2), 48–55. Retrieved from http://www.himss.org/files/HIMSSorg/content/files/jhim/19-2/focus_making.pdf  Incentives for adopting health IT alterations differ between employees and independent entrepreneurs. The authors propose an influence-based methodology for creating the appropriate health care environment for clinical IT use.  Optional Resources There are a wide variety of online tutorials available to assist you with using Visio. Below are two you might consider, as needed: Microsoft. (2011). The Visio 2010 MVP sessions. Retrieved from http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/visio/ This free resource, developed by Microsoft, provides video tutorials in the use of all aspects of Visio 2010.  Edson, D. (2011). Visio 2010 essential training. Retrieved from http://www.lynda.com/Visio-2010-tutorials/Essential-Training/75921-2.html This series of videos provides detailed instruction on all aspects of Visio use. This resource requires a paid subscription. Peer Review of Workflow Models