Healthcare Analytics Framework MHA 605 Week 2 Discussion

Healthcare Analytics Framework MHA 605 Week 2 Discussion

MHA 605 Week 2 – Discussion
Healthcare Analytics Framework MHA 605 Week 2 Discussion

Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses. Refer to the Discussion Forum Grading Rubric under the Settings icon above for guidance on how your discussion will be evaluated.

 Healthcare Analytics Framework

The use of healthcare analytics is an important step towards providing value to the transformation; this is taking place in the use of big data to assess areas of cost, innovation, productivity, and safety. These areas create value in the healthcare organizations as executives and leaders seek advanced decision-making metrics. Based on the aforementioned benchmarks the use of the Health Analytics Continuum and the Value Life Cycle will create increase in both data quantity and quality in any chosen hospital department (clinical, operations, or financial).
For this discussion you are to choose one area for the Healthcare Value Framework and one from the Value Life Cycle and discuss how each adds to the overall Healthcare Analytics Framework based on your chapter readings and current scholarly articles. Your discussion should be no more than 300 words in length.

Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on Healthcare Analytics Framework MHA 605 Week 2 Discussion done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
Meet my deadline

The Healthcare Value Framework (Davenport, 2014).

The Value Life Cycle (Davenport, 2014).
Healthcare Analytics Framework MHA 605 Week 2 Discussion
Healthcare Analytics Framework MHA 605 Week 2 Discussion Guided Response: Review your peers’ posts and provide a substantive response to at least two of your classmates’ posts by Day 7. A substantive response is a respectful, professional, and unique response that is at least five sentences in length and incorporates the following:

Highlights the key points of what you have learned from your peer’s post.
Adds your content knowledge.
Compares and contrasts.
Provides further research.
Is topic-related.

Monitor the forum through Day 7 to allow for robust dialogue.
Healthcare Analytics Framework MHA 605 Week 2 Discussion
In Davenport’s Healthcare Value Healthcare Analytics Framework MHA 605 Week 2 Discussion Framework (2014), analytics can play a huge role in Medical Cost Reduction.  Since medical costs represent the majority of an organization’s costs, this is the area where the most significant savings may be achieved (McNeill, 2014).  Evidence-based medicine (EBM) should be utilized to ensure the best and most cost-effective outcomes.  Analytics may help detect statistical outliers—for instance, physicians who order unnecessary, expensive tests or deviate from EBM.  (We have one neurologist who orders full spine MRIs on all his patients, whether justified or not.)  Also, analytics may detect and flag instances of duplicate test orders.  It is not uncommon for a hospital inpatient to have numerous doctors—for instance, a hospitalist, a cardiologist, and a pulmonologist.  All three of these physicians may order a chest x-ray on the same patient for the same day.  The system should detect this and warn them of (and/or disallow) the order duplication.  It may also be possible to use analytics to discover and control inventory waste.
In the Value Life Cycle, Discovery is the first step toward developing a business strategy that aligns the organization’s future operations with its mission and objectives.  This is where the standards and expectations are set.  Before analytics can be employed, the company’s objectives must be clearly defined.  What exactly does the organization value?  What outcomes does it hope to achieve?  How are these objectives prioritized?  What are the right steps to take toward meeting these goals?  These are the initial questions that must be asked if Business Intelligence is to properly serve the best interests of an organization.
Healthcare Analytics Framework MHA 605 Week 2 Discussion Reference
McNeill, D. (Ed). (2014). Analytics in healthcare and the life sciences: Strategies, implementation, methods, and best practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: International Institute for Analytics, Pearson Publisher.

Criteria
Ratings
Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting

50 to >44.0 pts
Excellent
Answers all parts of the Discussion question(s) with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. … Supported by at least three current, credible sources. … Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

44 to >39.0 pts
Good
Responds to the Discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. … At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. … Supported by at least three credible sources. … Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

39 to >34.0 pts
Fair
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). … One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. … Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. … Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. … Post is cited with two credible sources. … Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Contains some APA formatting errors.

34 to >0 pts
Poor
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s) adequately. … Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. … Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. … Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. … Contains only one or no credible sources. … Not written clearly or concisely. … Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. … Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

50 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Post: Timeliness

10 to >0.0 pts
Excellent
Posts main post by Day 3.

0 pts
Fair
N/A

0 pts
Good
N/A

0 pts
Poor
Does not post main post by Day 3.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response

18 to >16.0 pts
Excellent
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. … Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

16 to >14.0 pts
Good
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 to >12.0 pts
Fair
Response is on topic and may have some depth. … Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. … Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

12 to >0 pts
Poor
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. … Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.

18 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response

17 to >15.0 pts
Excellent
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. … Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 to >13.0 pts
Good
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. … Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. … Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. … Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. … Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 to >11.0 pts
Fair
Response is on topic and may have some depth. … Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. … Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

11 to >0 pts
Poor
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. … Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. … Responses to faculty questions are missing. … No credible sources are cited.

17 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParticipation

5 to >0.0 pts
Excellent
Meets requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

0 pts
Fair
N/A

0 pts
Good
N/A

0 pts
Poor
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

5 pts

Total Points: 100

Don’t wait until the last minute
Fill in your requirements and let our experts deliver your work asap.
Start My Order