300 likes | 496 Views
SDLC. Ruston Eye and Laser Institute. Group Members. Ross Aufrichtig Chad Gailfoil Terence Johnson Hong Nguyen, Jr. Scott Smith Emanuel Wilkerson. Overview. Group Contract Systems Request Feasibility Analysis Technical Economic Organizational Project Plan Conclusion.
E N D
SDLC Ruston Eye and Laser Institute
Group Members • Ross Aufrichtig • Chad Gailfoil • Terence Johnson • Hong Nguyen, Jr. • Scott Smith • Emanuel Wilkerson
Overview • Group Contract • Systems Request • Feasibility Analysis • Technical • Economic • Organizational • Project Plan • Conclusion
Group Contract • Objective • Group Policy • Meeting Policy • Communication Policy • Work Quality
Objective Policy • Utilizing knowledge and skills in System Analysis, Design, and Information Assurance. • Professionalism and seriousness. • Electronic Medical Record System • Insurance verification • Scheduling • Billing
Group Policy • Attendance in all CIS 450 classes and team meetings. • Attentiveness during meetings • Preparation • Submission of a peer review • Majority vote
Meeting Policy • Professor Meetings: Thursday 2:15-3:15PM. • Work Meetings: Monday, Wednesday, Friday 7-8PM. • Formal Project Review: Sunday 7-8PM. • Cell phones must be turned off. • Emergency meetings may be called as needed. • All assignment must be submitted on time.
Communication Policy • Email • Cell Phone • Text Messages
Work Quality • A strike will be issued to members if their work contains any of the following: • Excessive grammatical errors • Excessive misspelled words or phrases • Incomplete assignments • Failure to follow proper templates • Failure to follow the Document Policy • Falsification of time logs
Organization • Ruston Eye and Laser Institute • Ophthalmology clinic • Optical shop • Surgery • Located in Northern Louisiana
Existing Systems • LeonardoMD • Web based management and clinical software • Desktop Computers • Central Server • Paper medical records - Chart room • Employee insurance verification
Business Needs • Utilizing electronic medical records • Automating the insurance verification process • Implementing an inventory control system
Tangible Benefits • Reduce paper expenses • 3 reams * 52 = 156 reams 156 reams/10 reams per case = 15.6 cases 16 case * 36.99 per case = $591.84 • Reduce toner and ink expenses - Avg. $3,911.16 • Receive government incentives • Reduce payroll * Numbers are estimates
Intangible Benefits • Increased staff satisfaction • Availability of information • Inventory on-hand • Eliminate need for a medical chart storage room.
Technical Feasibility • Familiarity with the Business Processes (Moderate): • Team (Moderate): -Interviews and document analysis. -Appropriate knowledge. • Client (High) : • Jared M. Vincent, M.D. is the sponsor of this project. • Staff has combined 25 yrs experience.
Technical Feasibility • Team (Moderate): -Understanding of hardware and software. • Team member Scott Smith is currently employed with Ruston Eye and Laser Institute. • Hardware • Software • Java • Java Script • HTML • SQL • VisualBasic.NET
Technical Feasibility • Project Size (Medium): -Desktops and Infrastructure -Web Based -Very Complex due to database • The system is composed of nine tables and 45 fields. • User Interface: - Bar Code/ID Scanner Software
Economic Feasibility (Moderate) • Development Costs: - Total Development Costs: $40,000.00 • Recurring Costs: - Total Annual Recurring Costs for Years 0-5: $12,943.58 - System maintenance was estimated to costs around $3,000.00 annually.
Economic Feasibility • Tangible Benefits - Total Tangible Benefits for Years 0-5: $102,033.98 - Labor reduction results from eliminating two insurance verification positions.
Economic Feasibility • Net Present Value & Return on Investment - Net Present Value and Return on Investment for Years 0-5: - Net Present Value: $45,108.01 - Return on Investment: 140.80%
Organization Feasibility (High) • Project Champion • Jared M. Vincent, M.D. • Senior Management • Rhonda White • Users - Employees • Patients • Insurance Companies
Organization Feasibility (High) • Other Stakeholders • U.S. Government • Owner • Healthcare Industry • Veterans • Hospitals
Conclusion • Beneficial • Feasible • Cost effective • Great investment • Innovative