Selecting a Health Information System – An Interprofessional…

The following discussion assignment includes one initial post and two peer replies.

———

The assignment simulates a real-world scenario where students act as decision-makers tasked with developing a strategic plan to replace a failing HIT system. Students will take a holistic approach, incorporating elements of discovery, needs analysis, and stakeholder engagement. These tasks will include forming a project committee, selecting a committee chair and project manager, and addressing critical aspects such as usability, interoperability, cost-effectiveness, and long-term scalability.

In this assignment, you will create a comprehensive project plan to replace St. Harmon Hospitals aging electronic health record (EHR) system with a modern, AI-enhanced platform. The hospitals leadership has set an ambitious 18-month timeline for the project, requiring careful resource planning, milestone tracking, and stakeholder engagement. Your plan should account for all project phases, including initiation, planning, system design, data migration, training, go-live preparation, and stabilization.

To enhance your process, you will utilize the Microsoft Copilot AI tool to assist with writing and developing your project plan, including resource allocation, timeline predictions, budget modeling, and risk assessment. When writing your prompt for the AI tool to develop the project plan, provide the necessary background and detail based on the case study to ensure that the plan produced aligns with the hospitals expectations and objectives.

By leveraging these tools, you will gain insights into how technology can support complex project management tasks. Your aim is to ensure your plan aligns with the hospitals strategic objectives while addressing challenges such as staff engagement, data integrity, and system interoperability.

After completing your project plan, reflect on the outputs provided by the AI tools and the strategies you employed.

Key objectives of this exercise include:

1. Understanding the challenges and opportunities associated with HIT system replacement.
2. Learning to conduct a thorough needs analysis that addresses the diverse requirements of various stakeholders.
3. Exploring strategies for managing organizational change and stakeholder buy-in.
4. Applying best practices in project planning to ensure the successful implementation and adoption of the new system.

Overview of Assignment Components

• Case Study: An in-depth look at St. Harmon Hospitals decision to modernize its outdated EHR system. This case study highlights critical pain points, such as a lack of interoperability and user dissatisfaction, providing a foundational context for the project.
• Guides and Frameworks: Documents on effective selection and implementation of EHR systems, covering aspects like readiness assessments, stakeholder involvement, and vendor evaluation.
• Lessons from Real-World Examples: Insights into successful HIT system modernization efforts, including lessons on reducing inefficiencies, optimizing workflows, and managing organizational change.

Deliverables

Students will submit a detailed project plan that includes:

• A needs analysis addressing the perspectives of various user groups.
• Selection criteria for the project committee, chair, and manager.
• A roadmap outlining timelines, milestones, and critical dependencies.
• Strategies for ensuring interoperability, user training, and system testing.
• Budgetary considerations and risk mitigation strategies.

Through this assignment, students will enhance their ability to evaluate complex technological systems and lead transformative projects that support improved healthcare delivery. The exercise is designed to bridge academic learning with practical, real-world application, preparing students to be leaders in the dynamic field of health informatics.

• What were the most challenging aspects of creating a project plan for the HIT system replacement, and how did you address them?
• What key insights did you gain about the complexities of replacing a Health Information Technology system?
• Looking back, is there anything you would have done differently in your project plan or needs analysis? Why?
• If faced with a similar scenario in a real-world setting, how might you adapt your approach based on the lessons learned from this assignment?
• How did the AI tool assist you in developing your project plan? What specific tasks or challenges did it help streamline or improve?
• Were there any limitations or frustrations you encountered when using the AI tool? How did you work around them?
• How do you envision the role of AI evolving in HIT projects, such as system replacement? Do you think it will become indispensable, and why or why not?

Here are some suggested discussion prompts (HIT System Replacement Project Plan) to help guide you with your discussion post after you complete the assignment

• Challenging Aspects in Action
• Share one specific section from your project plan (e.g., needs analysis paragraph, timeline chart, or risk matrix) that you found most difficult to create. What made it challenging, and what steps did you take to resolve those challenges?
• Insights from the Case Study
• Point to one detail from the St. Harmon Hospital case study that directly influenced a decision in your plan (e.g., lack of interoperability, staff dissatisfaction). How did that detail shape your approach, and what insight did it give you about the complexities of system replacement?
• Looking Back with Evidence
• If you could redo part of your plan, identify one decision point(such as project committee structure, vendor criteria, or training approach) that you would change. Show a snippet of what you originally wrote and explain how you would revise it now and why.
• Real-World Adaptation
• Think about your own workplace (or a healthcare setting youve observed). How would you adapt one strategy from your St. Harmon project plan to fit that environment? Provide a concrete example that connects classroom work to practice.
• AI Tool Contribution
• Include a screenshot or excerpt of one output generated by Microsoft Copilot (or another AI tool you used). Which part of your plan did it shape (timeline, budget, risk analysis, etc.)? What did you keep from the AIs draft, and what did you have to edit or discard?
• AI Tool Limitations
• Describe one instance where the AI tool gave you an output that was inaccurate, incomplete, or unhelpful. How did you recognize the problem, and what specific adjustment did you make to fix it?
• Future of AI in HIT Projects – Based on your actual experience using AI in this project, do you think tools like Copilot could become indispensable in future HIT replacement projects? Provide one example from your work on this assignment that supports your conclusion.

Instructions:

• Initial Discussion Post: Each initial response must be at least 400 words without references, demonstrate course-related knowledge, and include a minimum of three (3) peer-reviewed sources.
• Peer Replies: In addition to the initial response, the learner is required to reply to two (2) other learners responses. Each reply must be at least 250 words without references, demonstrate course-related knowledge (integration of the course textbook), and include at least three (3) peer-reviewed sources. They are due by 11:59 p.m. CST on the Sunday of the assigned week.

Reply to the following 2 posts as separate entries:

First post:

Hello All,

When I first mapped out the 18-month implementation timeline for St. Harmon Hospitals EHR replacement, I assumed the hardest parts would be the technical pieces, data migration, interoperability, system configuration, and budgeting. But once I actually broke the project into phases, Planning & Governance, Design & Preparation, Pilot & Testing, and Rollout & Stabilization, I realized the real challenge wasnt technical at all. It was human.

During Months 13, when I focused on planning and governance, I struggled more than I expected with defining leadership roles. On paper, identifying a committee chair and project manager seems simple. In reality, I had to think through hospital dynamics, who holds influence, who clinicians trust, and how decisions will actually get made. Research shows that leadership involvement and clear governance structures strongly influence EHR success (McAlearney et al., 2010), and that really shaped how seriously I took this early phase. I realized those first three months set the tone for the entire 18-month journey. If trust and clarity are not established early, everything else becomes harder.

The Design & Preparation phase (Months 46) was where the timeline started to feel more personal. I added workflow observation sessions before system configuration because I didnt want the hospital to repeat the same mistakes that led to dissatisfaction with the current system. Reading about physician resistance being tied to workflow disruption, not just technology, made me rethink my approach (Boonstra & Broekhuis, 2010). Instead of focusing on building the system, I focused on understanding how people actually work. That shift from technology centered to people centered planning felt like a turning point in the project.

The Pilot & Testing phase (Months 712) reinforced another important lesson: implementation cannot be rushed or rigid. I intentionally placed pilot testing in lower risk departments first so we could learn before expanding. Research on sociotechnical systems highlights how culture, communication, and adaptation influence success just as much as software functionality (Cresswell & Sheikh, 2013). Seeing that reflected in my own timeline made me realize that flexibility is not a weakness in planning it is necessary.

Finally, when I reached the Rollout & Stabilization phase (Months 1318), I initially treated go live as the finish line. But after reviewing the literature, I understood that stabilization is often where success or failure becomes clear. Rushed implementations can reduce productivity and even create patient safety concerns (Jones et al., 2014). That is why I built in phased implementation, user adoption tracking, and ongoing support rather than assuming everything would normalize immediately after go live.

Using Microsoft Copilot helped me structure the timeline and organize milestones, especially when mapping dependencies across phases. It was great for outlining risks and sequencing tasks. However, its responses felt very mechanical at first. It did not naturally account for staff morale, burnout, or resistance. I had to refine prompts and layer in the human considerations myself.

Overall, this timeline helped me see that replacing an EHR is not about installing software within 18 months. It is about guiding people through change. Technology enables transformation, but leadership, communication, and trust determine whether that transformation succeeds.

Thank you,

Tatiana Vasquez

References

Boonstra, A., & Broekhuis, M. (2010). Barriers to the acceptance of electronic medical records by physicians from systematic review to taxonomy and interventions. BMC health services research, 10, 231. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-231

Cresswell, K., & Sheikh, A. (2013). Organizational issues in the implementation and adoption of health information technology innovations: an interpretative review. International journal of medical informatics, 82(5), e73e86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.10.007

Jones, S. S., Rudin, R. S., Perry, T., & Shekelle, P. G. (2014). Health information technology: an updated systematic review with a focus on meaningful use. Annals of internal medicine, 160(1), 4854. https://doi.org/10.7326/M13-1531

McAlearney, A. S., Robbins, J., Hirsch, A., Jorina, M., & Harrop, J. P. (2010). Perceived efficiency impacts following electronic health record implementation: an exploratory study of an urban community health center network. International journal of medical informatics, 79(12), 807816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.09.002

Second post:

Initial Discussion Post: Health Informatics System Replacement Plan

It takes both technical know-how and strong leadership to replace an old Health Information Technology (HIT) system, which is a challenging organizational shift. One of the most difficult parts of creating a project plan for upgrading St. Harmon Hospital’s antiquated electronic health record (EHR) system was striking a balance between the hospital’s ambitious 18-month timeframe and the practicalities of workflow redesign, data migration, and staff training. The case study emphasized the significance of early stakeholder engagement by showing that the failure of the current system was caused by staff discontent and poor usability in addition to technological restrictions.

This work made me realize how important the needs-analysis and discovery phases are to the long-term success of a project. Even the most sophisticated AI-enabled technology runs the danger of being poorly adopted if clinician pain points, interoperability gaps, and organizational readiness are not explicitly identified. To guarantee that decisions mirrored actual clinical workflows rather than just administrative priorities, a multidisciplinary project committee comprising clinical champions, IT leadership, and operational staff had to be formed.

The project planning process was greatly aided by the usage of Microsoft Copilot, especially in terms of timeline structure, risk identification, and deliverable organization. However, meticulous human scrutiny was necessary for AI outputs. Copilot produced budget estimates and milestone recommendations with efficiency, although it sometimes underestimated the amount of time required for user stabilization and training. This reaffirmed the idea that AI should not be used to replace expert judgment, but rather as a tool to assist in decision-making.

I would give change management and communication tactics even more importance if I were faced with a comparable real-world system replacement, especially during training and go-live. Proactive participation can lessen disruption and exhaustion, while resistance to change is a predicted obstacle. All things considered, this assignment showed that successful HIT replacement requires more than just satisfying technical criteria; it also requires integrating technology with people, procedures, and organizational culture.

18-Month EHR Replacement Timeline

MonthsProject PhaseKey ActivitiesMonths 12InitiationExecutive sponsorship, project charter, committee formationMonths 34Discovery & Needs AnalysisWorkflow assessments, stakeholder interviews, system requirementsMonths 56Vendor SelectionRFP process, vendor demos, contract negotiationMonths 79System Design & ConfigurationBuild workflows, configure AI tools, interoperability planningMonths 1011Data Migration & ValidationData mapping, testing, integrity checksMonths 1213Training & Change ManagementStaff training, super-user development, communication planningMonth 14Go-Live PreparationFinal testing, contingency planningMonth 15Go-LiveSystem launch, command center supportMonths 1618Stabilization & OptimizationIssue resolution, workflow optimization, performance evaluationThis visual timeline highlights the interdependence of planning, implementation, and stabilization phases and underscores why HIT replacement must be approached as an organizational transformation rather than a technical upgrade.

References

Boonstra, A., & Broekhuis, M. (2010). Barriers to the acceptance of electronic medical records by physicians from systematic review to taxonomy and interventions. BMC Health Services Research, 10, 231.

McGinn, C. A., Grenier, S., Duplantie, J., Shaw, N., Sicotte, C., Mathieu, L., Leduc, Y., Lgar, F., & Gagnon, M. P. (2011). Comparison of user groups perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: A systematic review. BMC Medicine, 9, 46.

https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-46

Otte-Trojel, T., de Bont, A., van de Klundert, J., & Rundall, T. G. (2014). How outcomes are achieved through patient portals: A realist review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 21(4), 751757.

West, V. L., Borland, D., & Hammond, W. E. (2015). Innovative information visualization of electronic health record data: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 22(2), 330339.