Category: Information Systems homework help

 
Research Paper 1
Requirements: a minimum of 1,000 words. This must be your own original work with references from academic sources. (Please make use of the library for help and additional resources). Your paper must use APA style format, have a cover page, and appropriately head with the course number, instructor info, your name, and the topic.
Identify at least six general data or computer crimes laws and discuss at least three of them in detail. Show recent cases for each that reflect the significance of those laws.

 
This discussion wraps up several of the topics discussed this semester, including standard of care, negligence, quality, peer review, and credentialing. I have randomly divided you into two large groups for this discussion (aka large group discussion). Each of you has been assigned a case:
Last name beginning with A-G – Read opinion on Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital Download Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital. Your initial post will be on the Johnson v. Misericordia case. At least one of your two peer responses should be on the Gonzales v. Nork case.
 
In your post, briefly summarize your assigned case, including the key facts, the individuals involved, and the outcome (you may have to do research in addition to your assigned article). Discuss the significance of the legal precedents in the case. You will then write a personal reflection on the case. You need to use at least two sources to support your arguments (one source can be the article). Sources should be cited in APA format.
Reflection Prompts
Do you agree with the outcome?
How do you think this case impacted healthcare law and the rights of patients?
Do you think anything could have changed the outcome?
Discuss the role that HIM may play in these types of cases.
Peer Response Instructions:
Review the discussion posts and select two peers to respond to. At least one of your responses should be on the case different from your own. Your two peer responses should be substantive. Substantive responses are those that further develop the topic and pursue an understanding of the domain. Simple messages that offer agreement or simple encouragement are considered conversant, but are not considered substantive. You should also continue the dialogue with anyone who responds to your posts. 
Peer response prompts:
Compare the two cases. What similarities or differences do you see in how the hospitals/families/courts handled each situation?
Share your thoughts. Do you agree or disagree with their perspectives on the outcome?

Provide an alternate perspective or play devil’s advocate. 
Research the Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital case and compare the two cases (note: only one peer response may discuss the Darling case).
Research the Helling v. Carey case and compare the two cases (note: only one peer response may discuss the Helling case).

 
Scenario: You are the HIM Director at Sacred Heart Hospital. After completing a documentation audit, you have identified three significant issues that you believe do not align with Joint Commission requirements:
History and physical examinations (H&Ps) are not complete (missing chief complaint and review of systems) and are not being done within the required time frame following admission.
Discharge summaries are not complete (missing elements or lack detail) and are not being done promptly upon discharge.
Progress notes are brief, use prohibited abbreviations, and do not describe patient’s condition, including improvement or decline.
You must now create an action plan to correct these issues and improve documentation. You will also conduct a focused audit of three additional charts.
Answer the following questions and submit as a word document or pdf. See the rubric for detailed grading information.
List the JC standard(s) relevant to each of the three identified issues. Include the Standard Label, Standard Text, and the specific Elements of Performance that apply. You must also briefly explain why you think these standards apply.

You may copy and paste the JC standard information, but make sure to strip out all formatting/links. For the Elements of Performance, you only need to copy/paste the relevant portions of text. See the example below.

Create an action plan that answers the following questions:

Which issue(s) would you prioritize and why?
What specific steps would you take to address these three identified issues? 
Who would you involve (i.e., physicians, other providers, admin, HIM, etc.) and why?
What type of follow-up would be needed? When/how often would the follow-up occur?

Select three charts (different from the one you selected for the Chart Review project) from the Example Medical Records module (located at bottom of the Modules page). Conduct a focused audit on the three identified issues (H&P, d/c summary, progress notes) and share your findings in a narrative format. Make sure to include the chart IDs (use file name – if I cannot tell what charts you are discussing, you will receive a zero for this question!).
Example for Question #1
Identified Issue: Providers are sharing signature stamps.
JC Standard:
RC.01.02.01 Entries in the medical record are authenticated.
EP 4 Entries in the medical record are authenticated by the author.
EP 5 The individual identified by the signature stamp or method of electronic authentication is the only individual who uses it.
I think that these apply because EP5 states only the individual can use their signature stamp, which sharing clearly violates. Also, EP4 states that the author must authenticate their entry, and if they are sharing signature stamps, authorship/authentication is put into question.
 

 200 words
Describe situaitons in which someone would use password cracking tools.
Select 5 different types of password cracking tools and explain how each one works.

Student Name:(1 point deducted if missing)
Workshop 5: Cause-and-Effect Diagrams & Pareto Charts  
The tools practiced in this workshop are:
• 5 whys/why-why analysis• Cause-and-effect diagrams• Pareto charts
Situation:
For this workshop assume that you are working on a project focused on low literacy rates among children. Childhood literacy efforts are essential to reducing the rates of adult illiteracy. Some 36 million adults in the U.S. don’t have basic reading, writing, and math skills above a third-grade level, according to ProLiteracy. And adult education programs are insufficient to meet the demand for services. If literacy can be improved during childhood development, it opens new opportunities for individuals later in life. (“Child Illiteracy in America: Statistics, Facts, and Resources”, Regis College, Jun. 29, 2023, https://online.regiscollege.edu/blog/child-illiteracy/.)
In the Analyze phase of your Lean Six Sigma project, you decide to investigate potential causes of this issue. To do this, you plan to use 5 whys/why-why analysis in conjunction with a cause-and-effect diagram. Then, you will collect data about the most significant potential causes of your problem and create a Pareto chart to determine the leading cause of this problem.
Instructions:
Use information from your slides in Analyze Phase Part 2 to assist you with the activities that follow. Be sure to follow the “best practices” for each tool you use in this workshop.
After completing your cause-and-effect diagram, reflect on all the items listed and select what you believe are the top five potential causes of the problem (these can be causes, sub-causes, and/or sub-sub-causes). Please label these with the numbers 1-5, where “1” represents what you believe is the leading cause of the problem. Then, obtain the file Workshop 4 Pareto Chart Data.xlsx from Canvas. This file is meant to simulate the process of you collecting data about the top 5 causes of your problem. Pretend the data in this file was collected from your observations and records. The data in this file are already “coded” for you, so all you need to do is fill-in the “key” and create the “Bins” or number of bars (based on the items you labeled 1-5 in your cause-and-effect diagram) so you will know what each number represents. You can then create your Pareto chart using this data in Microsoft Excel using the Analysis ToolPak add-in. Use data for a group based on the following (for this Workshop only). Determine which tab on the spreadsheet to use from your last name. 
Group A – Last name begins with A-D
Group B – Last name begins with E-H
Group C – Last name begins with I-L
Group D – Last name begins with M-P
Group E – Last name begins with Q-T
Group F – Last name begins with U-Z
(see Activities on next page)
Activities:
1. Create a cause-and-effect diagram (using 5 whys/why-why analysis)that organizes potential causes for the problem in the scenario. Remember to have causes, sub-causes, and sub-sub-causes. Use the Visio or PowerPoint template as a guide only. You should have much more detail than the template including more causes, sub-causes, and sub-sub-causes. Categories are not causes. There must be at least 5-6 categories. I will grade the assignment on thoroughness and completeness. 
2. Circle and number the 5 main causes for problem in the scenario. These can be causes, sub-causes, or sub-sub-causes. See the examples. 
[Paste your cause-and-effect here (use template provided in Canvas). Please ensure your work is readable on an 8½ in. x 11 in. piece of paper or you will not receive credit for your work.]
3. Create a Pareto chart that depicts the causes of the problem in the scenario. 
[Paste your Pareto Chart here (use Excel and the Data Analysis ToolPak Excel add-in-required). Please ensure your work is readable on an 8½ in. x 11 in. piece of paper or you will not receive credit for your work.Use black and white only.]
4. Based on the Pareto chart you created for Activity #2 of this Workshop, what cause of the problem should you address first in your Lean Six Sigma project and why?
5. Did the results of your Pareto chart surprise you (i.e., was the order of the actual top 5 causes of the problem shown in your Pareto chart different than what you had originally identified in your cause-and-effect diagram)? What does this illustrate about the importance of collecting data about a problem versus using only instinct/intuition?

 
Research Paper 1
Requirements: a minimum of 1,000 words. This must be your own original work with references from academic sources. (Please make use of the library for help and additional resources). Your paper must use APA style format, have a cover page, and appropriately head with the course number, instructor info, your name, and the topic.
Identify at least six general data or computer crimes laws and discuss at least three of them in detail. Show recent cases for each that reflect the significance of those laws.

 
This discussion wraps up several of the topics discussed this semester, including standard of care, negligence, quality, peer review, and credentialing. I have randomly divided you into two large groups for this discussion (aka large group discussion). Each of you has been assigned a case:
Last name beginning with A-G – Read opinion on Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital Download Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital. Your initial post will be on the Johnson v. Misericordia case. At least one of your two peer responses should be on the Gonzales v. Nork case.
 
In your post, briefly summarize your assigned case, including the key facts, the individuals involved, and the outcome (you may have to do research in addition to your assigned article). Discuss the significance of the legal precedents in the case. You will then write a personal reflection on the case. You need to use at least two sources to support your arguments (one source can be the article). Sources should be cited in APA format.
Reflection Prompts
Do you agree with the outcome?
How do you think this case impacted healthcare law and the rights of patients?
Do you think anything could have changed the outcome?
Discuss the role that HIM may play in these types of cases.
Peer Response Instructions:
Review the discussion posts and select two peers to respond to. At least one of your responses should be on the case different from your own. Your two peer responses should be substantive. Substantive responses are those that further develop the topic and pursue an understanding of the domain. Simple messages that offer agreement or simple encouragement are considered conversant, but are not considered substantive. You should also continue the dialogue with anyone who responds to your posts. 
Peer response prompts:
Compare the two cases. What similarities or differences do you see in how the hospitals/families/courts handled each situation?
Share your thoughts. Do you agree or disagree with their perspectives on the outcome?

Provide an alternate perspective or play devil’s advocate. 
Research the Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital case and compare the two cases (note: only one peer response may discuss the Darling case).
Research the Helling v. Carey case and compare the two cases (note: only one peer response may discuss the Helling case).

 
Scenario: You are the HIM Director at Sacred Heart Hospital. After completing a documentation audit, you have identified three significant issues that you believe do not align with Joint Commission requirements:
History and physical examinations (H&Ps) are not complete (missing chief complaint and review of systems) and are not being done within the required time frame following admission.
Discharge summaries are not complete (missing elements or lack detail) and are not being done promptly upon discharge.
Progress notes are brief, use prohibited abbreviations, and do not describe patient’s condition, including improvement or decline.
You must now create an action plan to correct these issues and improve documentation. You will also conduct a focused audit of three additional charts.
Answer the following questions and submit as a word document or pdf. See the rubric for detailed grading information.
List the JC standard(s) relevant to each of the three identified issues. Include the Standard Label, Standard Text, and the specific Elements of Performance that apply. You must also briefly explain why you think these standards apply.

You may copy and paste the JC standard information, but make sure to strip out all formatting/links. For the Elements of Performance, you only need to copy/paste the relevant portions of text. See the example below.

Create an action plan that answers the following questions:

Which issue(s) would you prioritize and why?
What specific steps would you take to address these three identified issues? 
Who would you involve (i.e., physicians, other providers, admin, HIM, etc.) and why?
What type of follow-up would be needed? When/how often would the follow-up occur?

Select three charts (different from the one you selected for the Chart Review project) from the Example Medical Records module (located at bottom of the Modules page). Conduct a focused audit on the three identified issues (H&P, d/c summary, progress notes) and share your findings in a narrative format. Make sure to include the chart IDs (use file name – if I cannot tell what charts you are discussing, you will receive a zero for this question!).
Example for Question #1
Identified Issue: Providers are sharing signature stamps.
JC Standard:
RC.01.02.01 Entries in the medical record are authenticated.
EP 4 Entries in the medical record are authenticated by the author.
EP 5 The individual identified by the signature stamp or method of electronic authentication is the only individual who uses it.
I think that these apply because EP5 states only the individual can use their signature stamp, which sharing clearly violates. Also, EP4 states that the author must authenticate their entry, and if they are sharing signature stamps, authorship/authentication is put into question.
 

 
Scenario: You are the HIM Director at Sacred Heart Hospital. After completing a documentation audit, you have identified three significant issues that you believe do not align with Joint Commission requirements:
History and physical examinations (H&Ps) are not complete (missing chief complaint and review of systems) and are not being done within the required time frame following admission.
Discharge summaries are not complete (missing elements or lack detail) and are not being done promptly upon discharge.
Progress notes are brief, use prohibited abbreviations, and do not describe patient’s condition, including improvement or decline.
You must now create an action plan to correct these issues and improve documentation. You will also conduct a focused audit of three additional charts.
Answer the following questions and submit as a word document or pdf. See the rubric for detailed grading information.
List the JC standard(s) relevant to each of the three identified issues. Include the Standard Label, Standard Text, and the specific Elements of Performance that apply. You must also briefly explain why you think these standards apply.

You may copy and paste the JC standard information, but make sure to strip out all formatting/links. For the Elements of Performance, you only need to copy/paste the relevant portions of text. See the example below.

Create an action plan that answers the following questions:

Which issue(s) would you prioritize and why?
What specific steps would you take to address these three identified issues? 
Who would you involve (i.e., physicians, other providers, admin, HIM, etc.) and why?
What type of follow-up would be needed? When/how often would the follow-up occur?

Select three charts (different from the one you selected for the Chart Review project) from the Example Medical Records module (located at bottom of the Modules page). Conduct a focused audit on the three identified issues (H&P, d/c summary, progress notes) and share your findings in a narrative format. Make sure to include the chart IDs (use file name – if I cannot tell what charts you are discussing, you will receive a zero for this question!).
Example for Question #1
Identified Issue: Providers are sharing signature stamps.
JC Standard:
RC.01.02.01 Entries in the medical record are authenticated.
EP 4 Entries in the medical record are authenticated by the author.
EP 5 The individual identified by the signature stamp or method of electronic authentication is the only individual who uses it.
I think that these apply because EP5 states only the individual can use their signature stamp, which sharing clearly violates. Also, EP4 states that the author must authenticate their entry, and if they are sharing signature stamps, authorship/authentication is put into question.

 Part 1: To familiarize yourself with different health plan quality measures and ratings done by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA).INSTRUCTIONS (There are 5 questions in total, each worth 2 points.)Note: You may switch between screens to complete this assignment.  There is no time limit on this assignment.PART 1: National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) Plan RankingsVisit NCQA WebsiteLinks to an external site. for the most recent health plan ratings (the last update was 9/15/2024.This website is hosted by an external party. In the event that the link should stop working, the Professor will provide students with an updated link (likely through a course Announcement). Use the filters on the left side of the NCQA rankings page to get the data you need to answer each question. For example, you may need to filter by “Plan Type” (Medicare, Commercial (Private), Exchange, or Medicaid] and/or by “States Served.”
Of private (commercial) plans in the State, how many plans received an overall score of 5.0?
Of Medicare plans in the State, how many plans received an overall score of 5.0?
Of Medicaid plans in the State, how many plans received an overall score of 5.0?
PART 2: Identifying Process and Outcome Measures Remember:Process measures indicate what administrative or procedural “actions” a provider or health plan does to maintain or improve patient health. Outcome measures reflect the impact of the healthcare service or intervention on the health status of patients. So, outcome measures evaluate the effectiveness or “outcomes” of a patient following the receipt of services, treatment, or procedures.Examples of both process and outcome measures are included in this chapter’s lecture.