Planning for HIG Implementation

Planning for HIG Implementation
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date

Most healthcare institutions discover the need for health information governance. They, therefore, create institutions that are geared towards the management of information. Paradoxically, one of the most likely causes of failure to proper information management plans is overreaches. The enthusiasm to create watertight management plans often leads to an attempt to do the impossible (AHIMA, n.d.). This can create information where some policies become obstructions to other policies. This is especially because major concepts in healthcare can themselves seem contradictory. For example, the attempt to ensure maximum confidentiality may be contradictory to the very basis of the Hippocratic Oath. Trying to ensure maximal confidentiality of patient information can result in healthcare professional not doing everything possible to improve the wellbeing of the patient (AHIMA, n.d.). The principles of consequentialism can contradict the principles of self-determination and so forth. For this reason, it is important for the information team to ensure that the plans are laid out in a rational manner. The following is an examination of points that a toolkit that should be evaluated so as to ensure that the plan is not self-inhibiting.
1. Have a fully indeed systems that identify the meaning to concepts
One of the facts that create an overreach is the presence of arbitrary principals defining concepts. This means that the creation of plans only caters to what should be done without determining what this means.

A simple concept can have different meanings for different people. For example, in an attempt to find a compromise between maintaining confidentially and caring for the patient in critical condition, a task force may determine that it is necessary to share only the vital information that can help in caring for a patient (Kloss, 2015). However, vital information can mean different things to different people. The person who is in charge of sharing the information at the particular time when it is needed may not have been directly responsible for the writing of the plan. They may, therefore, implement something that is not what was originally intended. For this reason, the task force must lay out indices that define all the term and concepts that are intended to avoid confusion when applying the toolkit.
2. Define a team that implements the strategy.
People who are not involved in the conceptualization of the concept are more likely to implement it in the toolkit wrongly. For this reason, it is more appropriate that there is a specific team that manages the strategy. This will involve the implementation from the starting point of collecting information (Kloss, 2015). It will also determine which information is collected and which information can be shared. When there is a specific team for the implementation of a plan, it is only proper to ensure that there are intermittent training plans for the toolkit. This will reduce the mistakes that can occur when the staff is not sure of what to implement.
3. Create a chart that shows how information is shared.
This involves creation of a mechanism that can be used to crosscheck and ensure that the information governance is being out in a proper manner. This system will also inform future staff members of the preplanned methods if information governance (Kloss, 2015). It will be used for training the future staff.
4. Plan mitigation and corrective measures in case of breaches.
This would involve setting stringent methods that will be used to mitigate the harm that is caused by breaches. It will also determine how those who break the rule are corrected.
References
AHIMA (n.d.). What is Information Governance, AHIMA Infographic.
Kloss, L. (2015). Implementing Health Information Governance. Lessons from the Field. In chapter 6: Information Integrity and Quality. Chicago: American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA). ISBN-13: 978-1-58426-087-5.