Scoring Three Bed Management Options Against the Hospital's Own Requirements, Not Against the Vendors' Feature Lists
Student Name
American College of Education
HLTH5643: Information Systems Management for Healthcare Administrators
Module 3 Assignment
Instructor Name
September 18, 2028
The Three Options
The previous module produced 38 requirements for a bed management system at the composite 318-bed hospital in this course, 17 ranked must, 15 should and 6 could, each drawn from the workarounds observed when 46 admissions were traced. Three options responded to the request for proposals and completed the scripted demonstration. Option A is the capacity management module offered by the vendor of the hospital's electronic record, which would run inside the existing record. Option B is a standalone bed management product from a company that specializes in patient flow software and would connect to the record through the interface engine. Option C is an add-on bed board sold by the company whose dispatch software environmental services already uses.
Each option has an obvious appeal. Option A would need no new interface and uses screens clinicians already know. Option B had the most polished demonstration and a predictive discharge dashboard that impressed several committee members. Option C would be the cheapest and would build on a tool housekeepers already use every day. An option's appeal is not a score; the requirements decide what counts.
The Scoring Method
The committee scored the options with a simple version of multiple criteria decision analysis, a method for weighing options against several weighted criteria at once. Thokala et al. (2016), in the first report of a professional task force on the method, describe it as a set of approaches that break a complex decision into explicit criteria, assess each option's performance on each criterion, weight the criteria by importance and combine the results, making the basis of a decision transparent. The companion report recommends that analysts check how sensitive the result is to the choice of weights and scores and report that uncertainty alongside the answer (Marsh et al., 2016).
The method had two stages. First, a gate: any option that did not fully meet every must requirement was eliminated, whatever its other strengths. Second, the remaining options were scored on should and could requirements. Each requirement was rated by the five-person evaluation team as met, worth 1 point, partly met, worth 0.5 or not met, worth 0, with the team's consensus rating recorded after discussion. Should requirements carried a weight of 3 and could requirements a weight of 1, giving a maximum of 45 points from should requirements and 6 from could requirements, 51 in all. Features that matched no requirement, however impressive, received no points.
Results of the Must Gate
Option C was eliminated at the gate. It could not display the status of every bed to the supervisor on one screen within 60 seconds of a change, because it tracked only rooms entered into the dispatch system and had no connection to admission, discharge and transfer events from the electronic record. It also failed the requirement for a protected message channel linking the house supervisor with unit charge nurses and the requirement to time-stamp every stage between the admit decision and the patient reaching the unit, since it recorded only cleaning events. The committee noted that Option C's mobile cleaning functions were the best of the three, and the requirement for bedside status updates in two taps was met by all options, but a product that sees only housekeeping cannot run bed placement for the house. Options A and B met all 17 must requirements, although Option A met the downtime report requirement only after the vendor confirmed a printable report was available in its current release.
Weighted Scores
On the 15 should requirements, Option A was rated met on 11, partly met on 3 and not met on 1, for 12.5 points before weighting, or 37.5 after. Its partial ratings were for bedside nurse cleaning records, the admission pause, which it supported only as a manual status without a timer, and the one-hour training limit for housekeepers, since its mobile screens were designed for clinicians. The requirement it did not meet was automatic queuing of cleaning when a patient's departure is recorded; the module queued cleaning only on the discharge order. On the 6 could requirements, it scored 3.5. Its total was 41.0 of 51 points, or 80.4 percent.
Option B was rated met on 13 should requirements and partly met on 2, for 14 points, or 42 after weighting, and scored 5 on the could requirements. Its total was 47 of 51 points, or 92.2 percent. Its partial ratings were for writing bed assignments back to the electronic record, which its interface supports but the hospital's interface team would need to build, and the housekeeper training limit, which the reference hospitals said took closer to ninety minutes. The predictive discharge dashboard that drew so much attention during the demonstration matched no requirement and added nothing to the score.
Sensitivity Check
Because the weight of 3 for should requirements was a judgment, the team tested whether the ranking depended on it. With a weight of 2, Option A scored 28.5 of 36, or 79.2 percent, and Option B scored 33 of 36, or 91.7 percent. With should and could requirements weighted equally, Option B still led. The team also tested the ratings themselves, moving them one step at a time. The gap between the options is six weighted points, and it closes only when three should ratings move against Option B together: if Option A's missing automatic cleaning queue were rated met, one of its partial ratings were raised to met and one of Option B's partial ratings were lowered to not met, both options would score 45.5. Any two such changes leave Option B ahead. The result is robust to reasonable changes in weights, less robust to large simultaneous changes in ratings, and the recommendation below is qualified accordingly.
What the Scores Do Not Capture
The requirements measure fit, not every consideration that matters. Option A's integration advantage is real: it needs no new interface, will be upgraded along with the electronic record and puts bed information on screens clinicians already use, which Kaplan and Harris-Salamone (2009) would recognize as reducing one common source of failure. Option B requires the interface team to build and then maintain a two-way connection, estimated at 320 hours of initial work, and introduces a second vendor into a process where problems must be solved quickly. Neither the cost of that interface nor ongoing license fees are in the scores; they will be analyzed in Module 6 as part of the full cost of ownership.
The scores also reflect a demonstration and reference calls, not use in this hospital. Two members of the evaluation team, both house supervisors, preferred Option B strongly because of its single-screen bed view, while the emergency physician on the team preferred Option A because physicians would not need a second login. Those views are recorded in the committee's minutes so that the decision can be revisited if implementation reveals problems with the chosen option.
Recommendation
Option B scored highest against the hospital's requirements, by about 12 percentage points, and the lead survives reasonable changes to the weights. The committee recommends that Option B proceed to contract negotiation, with two conditions: that the vendor commit in the contract to the two-way interface specification, and that the full five-year cost of Option B, including interface work and support, be compared with Option A before signature. If Option B's total cost exceeds Option A's by more than the steering committee's stated tolerance of 20 percent, the committee will bring both options back for a decision rather than proceed automatically. Scoring against requirements has narrowed the choice to one strong candidate; cost will decide whether that candidate is worth its premium.
References
Kaplan, B., & Harris-Salamone, K. D. (2009). Health IT success and failure: Recommendations from literature and an AMIA workshop. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16(3), 291-299. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2997
Marsh, K., IJzerman, M., Thokala, P., Baltussen, R., Boysen, M., Kaló, Z., Lönngren, T., Mussen, F., Peacock, S., Watkins, J., & Devlin, N. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making: Emerging good practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 19(2), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.016
Thokala, P., Devlin, N., Marsh, K., Baltussen, R., Boysen, M., Kalo, Z., Longrenn, T., Mussen, F., Peacock, S., Watkins, J., & Ijzerman, M. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making: An introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 19(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.003
How this HLTH 5643 Module 3 example is structured
HLTH 5643 Module 3 in many sections scores options against those requirements instead of against features; your classroom's instructions decide the scoring method and how many options to compare. This example describes the options neutrally, then explains the method, a must-pass gate followed by weighted scoring, citing published guidance on multiple criteria decision analysis. Results are reported with the arithmetic shown, followed by a sensitivity check and a section on what the scores do not capture. The recommendation is stated as conditional, pending the full cost analysis later in the course.
HLTH5643 Module 3 questions, answered
What does HLTH5643 Module 3 usually ask for?
HLTH5643 Module 3 in many sections asks students to compare system options by scoring them against the requirements written earlier, rather than against vendor feature lists. Many versions expect a scoring matrix, weights and a recommendation. Your classroom's instructions decide the scoring method and the number of options.
How do I score vendors against requirements?
Use must requirements as a pass-or-fail gate, then rate each remaining option on the other requirements with a simple scale such as met, partly met and not met. Apply weights by priority, add the scores and show your arithmetic. Give no points for features that match no requirement.
What is a sensitivity check in a vendor comparison?
A sensitivity check tests whether the ranking changes if weights or ratings change. Try different weights and see how many ratings would need to shift before the leading option loses. Reporting that point tells decision makers how confident they can be in the recommendation.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.