Optimizing Merged Health Information Systems: HIS Guide
This paper examines the responsibilities and challenges involved in implementing a health information system (HIS) following a merger of two comparably sized healthcare organizations. It analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of HIS—including usability, interoperability, scalability, and compatibility—and discusses how these systems affect patient care, documentation, and nursing care delivery. The paper also addresses how HIS can meet HITECH and HIPAA security and privacy requirements, protect patient data through administrative, physical, and technical safeguards, and improve organizational efficiency. Four essential interdisciplinary stakeholder roles are identified for successful implementation, and two National Association of Healthcare Quality (NAHQ) professional standards are proposed as evaluation benchmarks. The paper concludes by emphasizing that optimal patient outcomes depend on careful planning, implementation, and oversight of merged health information systems.
- Introduction: Context for HIS merger and paper scope
- Analysis of Health Information Systems: Advantages, disadvantages, usability, and interoperability of HIS
- Impact on Patient Care, Documentation, and Nursing Outcomes: How HIS affects nursing delivery and patient results
- Organizational Benefits and Regulatory Compliance: QI data uses, HITECH/HIPAA standards, and efficiency gains
- Interdisciplinary Team for System Implementation: Four key stakeholder roles and their responsibilities
- Evaluating Implementation Success: NAHQ standards and metrics for measuring HIS success
- Conclusion: Summary of merger challenges and planning imperatives
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Systematically addresses multiple dimensions of HIS implementation—technical, regulatory, clinical, and organizational—providing a comprehensive view rather than a narrow focus.
- Uses a well-organized table to compare safeguard types (administrative, physical, technical), making complex regulatory content accessible and easy to reference.
- Grounds abstract concepts like usability, interoperability, and scalability in concrete definitions and examples drawn from peer-reviewed sources.
- Balances advantages with corresponding disadvantages throughout, demonstrating critical rather than purely promotional thinking about health information systems.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of synthesized multi-source evidence to build a layered argument. Rather than presenting each citation in isolation, the author weaves together sources from clinical informatics, health policy, and regulatory literature to show how technical, social, and organizational factors are interrelated. This synthesis is particularly evident in the section on nursing care quality, where multiple authors' findings are sequenced to show cause-and-effect relationships between HIS design decisions and patient outcomes.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a clearly signposted analytical structure: it opens with an overview of the merger context, then moves through HIS advantages and disadvantages, clinical and nursing impacts, organizational and regulatory benefits, team composition, and finally evaluation criteria. Each section builds on the previous one, and the conclusion returns to the paper's central claim that optimal outcomes require deliberate planning rather than passive adoption of technology.
Introduction
Although the merger of two comparably sized companies competing in the same industry is a relatively commonplace business strategy, the process is fraught with obstacles and challenges, and a significant percentage of merged entities fail outright because of these problems (Murphy, 2019). These difficulties are further compounded when sophisticated information systems are involved that must also be merged successfully. The purpose of this paper is to explicate the responsibilities involved in implementing a health information system (HIS) that meets current Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) security and privacy regulatory requirements.
To this end, the paper provides a discussion and analysis of health information systems, a description of how a system will affect patient care and documentation, and an explanation of how using a system to access information will affect the quality and delivery of nursing care and patient outcomes. This is followed by a discussion of how a system will benefit the merged organization. Finally, four essential stakeholder roles needed to form an interdisciplinary team for system implementation are described, and a plan for evaluating implementation success incorporating two professional organization standards is presented.
Analysis of Health Information Systems
Advantages and Disadvantages
A health information system is defined by Abouzhar (2009) as an "integrated effort to collect, process, report and use health information and knowledge to influence policy-making, program action and research" (p. 578). Although health information systems may differ significantly in terms of configurations and capabilities, they typically share common features related to improving the ability of healthcare organizations to more effectively manage patient-related data, identify problem areas, and pursue opportunities for improvement. According to Shahmoradi and Habibi-Koolaee (2016), the primary advantages of health information systems relate to their ability to "provide assembly, analysis, and dissemination of data necessary to guide, promote and evaluate the disease prevention and health promotion programs" (p. 1096).
Conversely, the main disadvantages of health information systems include their complexity and the piecemeal fashion in which they are frequently developed (Cresswell & Aziz, 2013). Moreover, no conceptual framework is universally available for the implementation of health information systems, and the process can be extremely difficult as a result of a broad array of technical, social, and organizational factors that tend to be interrelated. In this regard, Cresswell and Aziz (2013) emphasize that "the evidence indicates that there are a range of technical, social and organizational considerations that need to be deliberated when attempting to ensure that technological innovations are useful for both individuals and organizational processes" (p. 73). Because these factors are typically interrelated, the decision-making process for implementing health information systems must apply a holistic approach so that there are no unintended outcomes or adverse effects on patient care (Cresswell & Aziz, 2013).
Usability, Interoperability, Scalability, and Compatibility
The full range of advantages that accrue from health information systems can only be achieved by ensuring they are usable, scalable, interoperable, and compatible. Effective health information systems are characterized by a high degree of usability. In this context, "usability" refers to "the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specific users can achieve a specific set of tasks in a particular environment" (Usability, 2019). It requires a significant amount of time to realize these advantages, and organizational leaders should be prepared for setbacks and mistakes along the way.
At present, the usability of many health information systems remains suboptimal due to the manner in which data is stored and the difficulties frequently experienced in attempting to access it (Abouzhar, 2009). Similarly, the term "interoperability" refers to "the ability of different information systems, devices or applications to connect, in a coordinated manner, within and across organizational boundaries to access, exchange and cooperatively use data amongst stakeholders, with the goal of optimizing the health of individuals and populations" (What is interoperability?, 2019, para. 2).
Effective health information systems are also characterized by a high level of scalability so that they can accommodate ongoing increases in data and user demand (Zhou & Watzlaf, 2017). In addition, ensuring the compatibility of two merged health information systems is vitally important in order to optimize their combined operations. In the past, compatibility between disparate systems was somewhat easier to achieve because data typically consisted of alphanumeric entries only; however, the transition from paper-based documentation to digital storage has been marked by the addition of graphic images and other data types that may not be easily shared between systems (Reichertz, 2009), making compatibility a fundamental requirement for success.
One strategy that can help ensure the interoperability and compatibility of disparate health information systems is the use of middleware. Shahmoradi and Habibi-Koolaee (2016) report that "standards on terminology, security and data exchange play a critical role to integrate health information systems and provide interoperability across heterogeneous systems. Middleware is a tool to facilitate the integration of health information systems, so that, in the interaction between the systems there is no need to reproduce the same component of them" (p. 1098). Taken together, it is clear that there are a number of advantages and corresponding disadvantages related to health information systems, and these systems also have a profound effect on patient care and documentation.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.