• Read Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 ofHealth Informatics: An Interprofessional Approachand analyze the Hierarchy of Informatics Diagram in Chapter 35 of your text (Figure 35.6).
• Read the articleWhat Informatics Is and Isn't Links to an external site..

You will be responding to the following discussion question based on your your University of Arizona Global Campus major of study (Health Administration ).

Read the following scenario:

• Cherry Health System (CHS) consists of a general hospital, a women's hospital, 20 doctor practices comprised of doctors who work for CHS, and an ambulatory surgery center. The leadership of this facility has decided they would like to take the existing paper-based consumer education pamphlets on tobacco education and deploy them to the ambulatory population of CHS who visit the doctor offices and surgery center. They would like to use the informatics tools, principles, and content available throughsmokefree.gov Links to an external site.as a basis for this education. In order to identify patients who can benefit from this informatics solution, they asked administrators in the physician offices and the surgery center to print a report of patients who currently use tobacco from the CHS electronic health record (EHR). As a professional in your field of study, you have been asked to provide input into the design of this informatics solution.

Based on the above scenario:

• Provide a rationale as to where in the Hierarchy of Informatics (Chapter 35, page Figure 35.6, page 608) the CHS tobacco informatics solution would be categorized.
• Based on your major of study and the patient education informatics tools available fromhttps://smokefree.gov/build-your-quit-plan Links to an external site., discuss three informatics functions that your design for the tobacco education solution would include.
• Identify at least two program evaluation methods (found in Chapter 4 of the course textbook) that you would recommend to CHS leadership to evaluate the effectiveness of the tobacco education informatics solution.

608 UNIT 9 Historical Implications and Future Directions in Health Informatics Basic Research Biomedical Informatics Methods Techniques, and theories Biomedical Informatics = Health Informatics Health Informatics Applied Research Bioinformatics Imaging Clinical Public Health Informatics Informatics Informatics and Practice Molecular and Tissues and Individuals Populations Cellular Organs (Patients) and Society Processes FIG 35.5 Biomedical informatics in perspective. (Used with permission from the American Medical Informatics Association.} Health and Biomedical Informatics Health Biomedical Informatics Informatics Informatics public Health Population Clinical Translational Bio Impact Informatics Informatics Informatics Informatics [Molecular) Evaluation" Informatics Translational Consumer Imaging Informatics Informatics Bioinformatics Informatics Research Informatics Behavioral Nursing Dental Traditional Clinical Medical Research Informatics Informatics Informatics Informatics Informatics FIG 35.6 Hierarchy of informatics. This diagram shows the relationships between various sub- domains of Health and BMI. The domains are shown as blobs rather than as discrete boxes to emphasize the high degree of overlap among the domains. This hierarchy should be considered a snapshot in time rather than a definitive final solution. (Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Preventive Medicine. )CHAPTER 4 Models, Theories, and Research for Program Evaluation 61 and are unique for three reasons. First, stakeholders' knowledge personnel. Needs assessments and feasibility analyses are also about the capabilities of health IT systems may be limited at the included in this general category. Box 4.2 outlines several beginning of a project. Second, the health IT product often questions that fall into the category of formative evaluation changes substantially during the implementation process. for health IT. Third, true implementation often takes 6 months or longer, with In contrast, summative evaluation refers to an assess- users maturing in knowledge, skills, and external influences, ment of the outcomes and impact of the program. Effective- such as new regulations or organizational initiatives, occurring ness, direct outcomes, and adverse events analyses are the over that period. Identification of the unique contribution of the types of measures included in this category. Some questions health IT application, therefore, is often difficult and evaluation that fall into the summative evaluation category are listed in goals frequently go beyond the health IT component alone. Box 4.3. In this chapter the health IT component of evaluation is Dividing the evaluation process into the formative and integrated with overall program evaluation; unique issues are summative components is somewhat arbitrary because highlighted for evaluating health IT itself."The chapter is orga- they can be, and often are, conducted concurrently. They nized into three sections: (1) purposes of evaluation, (2) theories do not necessarily differ in terms of methods or even in and frameworks, and (3) methods, tools, and techniques. terms of the content of the information collected. Forma- tive evaluation is especially important for health IT prod- PURPOSES OF EVALUATION ucts where the overall goal is improvement. Because health IT products are "disruptive technologies," they both trans- The purpose of evaluation determines the methods, approaches, form the working environment and are themselves trans- tools, and dissemination practices for the entire project being formed during the process of implementation." Many evaluated. Therefore identifying the purpose is a crucial first writers in the informatics field have noted the paucity of step. Mark, Henry, and Julnes provided four main evaluation information on implementation processes in published purposes as listed in Box 4.1. studies. In a meta-analysis of health IT by researchers at Usually an evaluation project is not restricted to just one of RAND, the authors noted: these purposes. Teasing out which purposes are more impor- tant is a process for the evaluator and the involved stake- In summary, we identified no study or collection of studies, out- holders. The following sections represent a series of side of those from a handful of health IT leaders that would allow questions that can clarify the process. a reader to make a determination about the generalizable knowl- edge of the system's reported benefit. This limitation in general- Formative Versus Summative Evaluation izable knowledge is not simply a matter of study design and internal validity. Even if further randomized, controlled trials Will the results of the evaluation be used to determine whether are performed, the generalizability of the evidence would remain the goals of the program have been met? This question refers to low unless additional systematic, comprehensive, and relevant a common classification of evaluation activities that fall into descriptions and measurements are made regarding how the two types: (1) formative evaluation and (2) summative evalu- technology is utilized, the individuals using it, and the environ- ation. The difference is in how the information is used. The ment it is used in." p. 4 results of the formative evaluation are used as feedback to the program for continuous improvement. "The results of Although written in 2006, this statement is still relevant today. the summative evaluation are used to evaluate the merit of the program. Formative evaluation is a term coined by Scriven in 1967 and expanded on by a number of other BOX 4.2 Questions to Pose During authors to mean an assessment of how well the program is Formative Evaluation being implemented and to describe the early experiences of . What is the nature and scope of the problem that is being participants." Topics for formative evaluation include the addressed by health information technology? fidelity of the intervention, the quality of implementation, What is the extent and seriousness of the need? the characteristics of the organizational context, the resources How well is the technology working, and what is the best involved, the usability of a particular design, and the types of way to deliver it? . How are participants (and users) experiencing the program? . How did the intervention change after implementation? BOX 4.1 Main Purposes of Program Evaluation Program and organizational improvement BOX 4.3 Questions to Pose During . Assessment of merit or worth Summative Evaluation . Knowledge development Oversight and compliance . To what degree were the outcomes affected by the product? Adapted from Mark M. Henry G, Julnes G. Evaluation: An Integrative . What is the cost effectiveness of the product? Framework for Understanding, Guiding and improving Policies and . What were the unintended consequences of the product? Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2000