Based on the facts presented in the case, how far had Fetcher-Allen progressed in these steps by June, 1998? How likely is it that Fletcher-Allen would have achieved full-year 2000 compliance by December 31, 1999? [Explain your reasoning, supported by specific evidence from the case and assigned readings.]
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The inventory was almost complete. All mission-critical systems had been identified, and plans for these systems were in place. Correspondence with vendors was ongoing to ensure compliance.Since December 1997, an eight-member team had been working to identify medical devices with date-sensitive microprocessors. By June 1998, they had identified nearly 6000 devices, about 2000 of which had no electronic components and hence no Y2K issues. The remaining devices were being analyzed for compliance. Fletcher-Allen had subscribed to VHAseCURE.net to obtain Y2K status reports for these devices, with the report expected back in June 1998.Also, two full-time employees were budgeted to begin inventorying facilities devices and systems. Letters were sent to building owners (since many buildings were leased) to identify Y2K issues in their facilities.Furthermore, letters were planned to be sent to 14 key payors (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, Blue Cross/Blue Shield) requesting information on their Y2K compliance programs. There was an estimation that $26 million to $40 million owed to Fletcher-Allen could be delayed if these payors experienced Y2K failures. Y2K compliance clauses were being inserted into all new contracts.
However, it is still unlikely that Fletcher-Allen would have achieved full-year 2000 compliance by December 31, 1999. Resource allocation was a significant concern, with managers struggling to prioritize Y2K efforts over other ongoing projects. This lack of prioritization and ownership posed a risk to timely compliance. Compliance depended not only on internal efforts but also on the readiness of external vendors and suppliers, which introduced additional uncertainty and potential delays .The difficulty in testing every device, especially those critical to patient care, added to the complexity. Remediation efforts required substantial coordination and validation to ensure no disruption in services
Identification of Potential Risks: The case mentions that Fetcher-Allen had identified nearly 6,000 devices that were in use in the hospital. Out of these, around 2,000 devices were non-electronic and hence did not pose a Y2K risk. This initial identification process was crucial in understanding the scope of the problem.
Use of External Services: Fetcher-Allen subscribed to VHAseCURE.netTM, a subscription-based service provided by the Volunteer Hospital Association. This service was used to match Fetcher-Allen’s list of questionable devices against data gathered from manufacturers and other hospitals. This helped Fetcher-Allen get an initial understanding of the Y2K status of their devices.
Analysis of Devices: The case mentions that many devices, such as EKG monitors, contained date-sensitive processors. Fetcher-Allen would need to analyze these devices further to determine if they were Y2K compliant. This analysis was ongoing by June 1998.
Awareness and Planning: The case study shows that Fetcher-Allen was aware of the Y2K issue and had taken steps to address it. They had formed a Year 2000 Steering Committee and had assigned a Y2K Project Coordinator to oversee the process. They were also preparing for a meeting with the Patient Care and Systems Improvement (PCSI) committee to brief them on the status of the Y2K project.
Challenges and Uncertainties: While Fetcher-Allen had made progress, they still faced challenges. The case mentions that the project was not proceeding as fast as necessary, indicating that there were delays or obstacles in the process. Additionally, the Y2K status of many devices was still unknown, and Fetcher-Allen would need to continue analyzing and testing them to ensure compliance.
In summary, by June 1998, Fetcher-Allen had made good progress in identifying and mitigating their Y2K bug risks. They had identified potential risks, used external services to get an initial understanding of the Y2K status of their devices, and were analyzing and testing devices further to determine their Y2K compliance. However, they still faced challenges and uncertainties, and the project was not proceeding as fast as desired.
By June 1998, Fletcher-Allen had made significant progress in identifying and mitigating their Y2K bug risks. Sadlemire was actively involved in a comprehensive inventory of the hospital’s systems and applications, which by late fall had identified 150 departmental applications. He also initiated communication with vendors about compliance issues and planned testing to ensure that all systems were Y2K compliant. Furthermore, he reported to the Steering Committee on the progress of various Y2K projects, indicating that many older systems were being converted to vendor software that was already or soon to be Y2K compliant.
I think it is less likely that Fletcher-Allen will achieve full year 2000 compliance by December 31, 1999. Because there are still a lot of challenges that haven’t been solved, such as delays in implementing replacement projects for non-compliant systems and budgetary constraints leading to refurbishing old systems rather than purchasing new ones.
By June 1998, Fletcher-Allen had made significant progress in identifying and mitigating their Y2K bug risks. Here are specific points supporting this conclusion:
Identification and Awareness: Fletcher-Allen had a clear understanding of the Y2K problem and its potential impact on their operations. They had identified the systems and processes that were most at risk from the Y2K bug.
Project Planning and Management: The company had established a dedicated team to address the Y2K issue, demonstrating their commitment to resolving the problem. This team was tasked with conducting a thorough assessment of all their systems to identify Y2K vulnerabilities.
Inventory and Assessment: They had completed an inventory of all their hardware and software systems to identify those that were non-compliant. This step is crucial in understanding the scope of the problem and prioritizing efforts.
Remediation Efforts: Fletcher-Allen had begun the process of remediating identified issues. This included upgrading or replacing non-compliant systems and ensuring that new systems purchased were Y2K compliant.
Evidence from the case supports these points, highlighting the structured approach taken by the company to tackle the Y2K problem. However, there were still significant challenges ahead, such as ensuring that all identified issues were fully resolved and testing the systems thoroughly.
By June 1998, Fletcher-Allen had made notable strides in identifying and mitigating their Y2K bug risks. They had inventoried approximately 6000 medical devices, determining that 2000 had no Y2K issues and the remaining 4000 required further compliance analysis. Additionally, the inventory of mission-critical systems was nearly complete, with active projects and vendor communications aiming for full compliance by mid-1999. Their technical systems evaluation showed that desktop hardware and software assessments were done, and network and mainframe evaluations were ongoing. Furthermore, they started inventorying facilities devices and systems, with completion anticipated by mid-summer 1998, and had initiated communications with key payors and suppliers to discuss Y2K compliance.
However,given the facts presented in the case study, it appears unlikely that Fletcher-Allen would have achieved full-year 2000 compliance by December 31,several challenges remained. Critical areas such as independent departmental applications and facilities devices required significant work. Vendor responses and testing of many devices were still pending, and the comprehensive inventory of all systems was not yet achieved. There were also organizational issues, including a lack of urgency among some managers and insufficient top-down support, which led to competing priorities that hampered Y2K efforts. The project faced the risk of being overshadowed by other less critical projects. Given these substantial hurdles and the relatively short timeframe remaining, achieving full compliance by the end of 1999 would have been a formidable challenge.
By June 1998,They had completed an inventory of the 107 administrative and clinical applications supported by the Information Services (IS) organization and identified 150 additional departmental applications, though many were still unreported. An inventory of desktop hardware and software packages was also compiled, but there were delays in gathering information for mainframe, DEC Alpha, and Unix systems. Nearly 6000 medical devices were inventoried, with 2000 identified as non-electronic and thus not at risk for Y2K issues. The analysis phase was ongoing, with vendor compliance and remediation plans being identified for various systems.
In my opinion, it is unlikely that Fletcher-Allen Health Care would have achieved full-year 2000 compliance by December 31, 1999.
First, the hospital had a variety of hardware, operating systems, and programming languages, making the Y2K compliance effort extensive and multifaceted. The organization’s reliance on many different platforms increased the complexity of ensuring that all systems were compliant.
Second, the Meditech clinical systems replacement had a completion target of June 1999, which left very little margin for error. The IDX project, another significant undertaking, was already five months behind schedule by June 1998. These delays and tight timelines heightened the risk of not meeting the Y2K deadline.
Third, Although a Y2K Task Force and Steering Committee were established, there was still a need for greater top management focus and departmental buy-in. The lack of comprehensive departmental inventories indicated ongoing difficulties in achieving complete organizational engagement and coordination.
By June 1998, Fletcher-Allen had made progress in identifying and mitigating the risk of Y2K vulnerabilities, but the project was not moving as fast. Case in point is the completion of the May 1998 meeting minutes. And the case also mentions that Sadmire expressed concern that the project was not moving fast enough. It seems less likely that Fletcher-Allen would achieve full-year 2000 compliance by December 31, 1999, given Sadlemire’s concerns about the pace of the project. The time constraints and the complexity of the task suggest that there might be delays in completing the necessary fixes.
(1) Realizing the seriousness of Y2K issues: Fetcher Allen’s team has recognized the potential impact that Y2K issues may have on their systems, including connection systems with suppliers and payers, as well as multiple areas beyond IS control such as facilities, medical equipment, and departmental systems. This understanding is a prerequisite for taking further action.
(2) Build a team and clarify responsibilities: Fetcher Allen has formed an eight person team specifically responsible for identifying medical devices with date sensitive microprocessors. Team leader Wally Elliott is responsible for reporting and coordinating work, indicating that the hospital has begun to systematically address Y2K issues.
(3) Preliminary device identification: The team has identified nearly 6000 medical devices from up to 400 different manufacturers and 1000 different models. This preliminary device identification provides a foundation for subsequent risk assessment and strategy formulation.
(4) Risk assessment and classification: Fetcher Allen has started conducting a risk assessment and classification of the equipment. They found that about 2000 devices do not have electronic components, so they will not be affected by Y2K issues. For the remaining 4000 devices, they identified that some of them contained date sensitive processors, but many devices still need further analysis to determine whether there are Y2K issues and whether they comply with Y2K standards.
(5) Seeking external support: Fetcher Allen has subscribed to the service, which is a subscription based service provided by the Volunteer Hospital Association. They sent a list of 4000 potentially problematic devices to VHA for matching with VHA’s files and generating Y2K status reports. This collaborative approach helps to accelerate the speed of equipment evaluation.
(6) Budget and procurement plan: Fetcher Allen has started estimating the funding required to upgrade to equipment that meets Y2K standards. Although some manufacturers offer free upgrades, many do not offer this service. For devices that do not meet Y2K standards and do not offer free upgrade options, hospitals may need to purchase new devices.
In June 1998, Fetcher Allen has made some progress in identifying and mitigating the risk of Y2K vulnerabilities, but the specific degree of progress needs to be analyzed based on detailed evidence from case studies.
Firstly, Fletcher Allen has realized the importance of the Y2K issue and has begun conducting relevant risk assessments and preparations. This can be seen from their decision not to contact each supplier separately, but to subscribe to the VHAseCURE.netTM service. This service is based on a subscription model and is provided by the Volunteer Hospital Association, aiming to help hospitals identify and mitigate Y2K risks.
Secondly, Fletcher Allen has completed a preliminary evaluation of nearly 6000 devices in the hospital. These devices come from up to 400 different manufacturers and 1000 different models. During the evaluation process, they found that approximately 2000 devices (such as heating pads and pneumatically controlled ventilators) did not have electronic components, making it impossible for Y2K issues to exist. This discovery significantly reduces the number of devices that require further analysis.
However, for the remaining approximately 4000 devices, including some devices such as electrocardiogram (EKG) monitors, they do include date sensitive processors. This means that these devices may have Y2K risks and further analysis is needed to determine whether they are affected by Y2K, and if so, whether they comply with Y2K compliance.
At this point in June 1998, Fletcher Allen has started this analysis process by subscribing to the VHAseCURE.netTM service and sending a list of suspicious devices to VHA. VHA will generate Y2K status reports for all matching devices based on their files and data collected from manufacturers and other hospitals. Although these reports have not yet been completed, Fletcher Allen has taken an important step in identifying and mitigating Y2K risks.
In summary, by June 1998, Fletcher Allen has made some progress in identifying and mitigating the risk of Y2K vulnerabilities. They realized the seriousness of the problem, took proactive measures, and began to evaluate and analyze the equipment in the hospital. However, due to the complexity and breadth of the Y2K issue, further work is needed to fully ensure the Y2K compliance of the hospital system.
By June 1998, Fetcher Allen should have made significant progress in these steps, particularly in the evaluation and inventory stages, as well as possibly in the remediation phase of critical systems and applications. By June 1998, they had identified nearly 6000 devices, of which approximately 2000 did not have electronic components, so there were no issues with the year 2000. In addition, they also discussed emergency plans, testing, and other aspects with suppliers, and developed relevant measures based on this.
The possibility of achieving full year compliance for the year 2000 by December 31, 1999 will depend on various factors. If significant progress has been made and effective resources and strategies are in place before June 1998, it is possible to achieve compliance for the year 2000 by December 31, 1999. But if significant challenges or other difficulties are faced, the likelihood of achieving compliance before the deadline may decrease.
Progress as of June 1998:
The eight-person team, led by Wally Elliott, has identified approximately 6,000 medical devices, of which approximately 4,000 require further analysis for Y2K compliance. A VHAseCURE.net subscription was purchased to help match the device to the Y2K status reporting database, which was due to expire in June 1998. Inventory has begun, with a focus on building access control systems and environmental controls. Paul Leible oversaw the procurement of 183 key suppliers and began contacting them to find out about their Y2K readiness.
Progress as at 31 December 1999:
Elliott’s team continues to analyze equipment, estimate the funding needed for upgrades, and plan to test three categories of projects: life support technologies, identified noncompliance, and projects where manufacturers are unresponsive. The inventory process continued and letters were sent to owners of rental properties to identify Y2K issues. Expressed confidence that Y2K projects are progressing well with key suppliers and plan to contact suppliers for 2000.
While progress has been made, several issues have cast doubt on full compliance by 1 January 2000: some manufacturers have not responded, which could delay compliance efforts.
Fetcher-Allen had made considerable progress by June 1998 and further progress by December 31, 1999. However, while full compliance by 1 January 2000 is possible, it cannot be guaranteed due to a number of unresolved issues and testing and resource allocation constraints. There is evidence that significant compliance is likely to be achieved despite full assurance that remaining challenges need to be addressed.
According to the case, by June 1998 Fetcher-Allen had made some progress in the steps towards full Year 2000 compliance. Is-supported Applications: Most legacy systems are being converted to vendor software that IS already or will soon be Y2K compliant. However, some replacement projects may not be completed on time, particularly the Meditech project, which is scheduled to start in the fall of 1998 with a targeted launch date of June 1999. This raises some concerns, so Jennings Consulting may need to be brought in to do the restoration of HIS, but this will cost more than $100,000. Technical (hardware and software tools): Eary’s technical support group was allowed to defer some Y2K work until infrastructure projects were completed. Sadlemire’s group will no longer be involved in Eary’s Y2K project. However, many other areas still rely on the compliance of the technical part. 3. Telecommunications: The telephone network is planned to be replaced with Y2K compliant network software, switches and other equipment. Fletcher-Allen does not have a test environment to evaluate telecom equipment, so there is a need to obtain some form of independent verification of vendor declared compliance. In addition, network replacement projects may be scaled back due to budget constraints, which may require repair work. 4. Independent (departmental) Applications: Application owners are aware of their responsibility to contact the relevant vendors for fixes and testing. However, actual compliance progress appears to be small at the moment, and many managers have left as a result of spring restructuring.
1.Its progress is mainly reflected in the following aspects:(1) Support applications:Based on the reasoning that “Large applied Hospital Information Systems (HIS) are currently being analyzed, including 800,000 lines of assembly code, to identify and resolve Y2K problems,” many older systems have or will meet the Y2K requirements of the new vendor software.(2) Technical tools:Based on the reasoning that “115 different software tools were developed, but many needed to be upgraded or replaced to comply with Y2K standards,” progress was slow as the technical support team focused on other high-priority infrastructure projects .(3) Clinical equipment and facilities:Based on the reasoning that “a list of nearly 6,000 medical devices was compiled to identify devices with date-sensitive microprocessors in need of repair,” the team is likely to focus its efforts on medical devices, and the pace of progress may gradually accelerate.
2.I do not think the likelihood of Fletcher-Allen achieving full year 2000 compliance by December 31, 1999 is high. Here’s why:(1) Complexity of hospital systems and equipment: hospitals have a wide variety of hardware and programming languages, as well as a large number of medical equipment that needs to be evaluated and repaired. This complexity can make it difficult for all systems to be compatible in a timely manner.(2) Dependence on suppliers and third parties :Fletcher-Allen relies on suppliers and third parties for many of its systems and equipment, and needs to ensure that these parties also meet requirements. This can involve coordinating with multiple vendors, which can be a time-consuming process.(3) It is necessary to understand the company’s previous understanding and response to Y2K issues. If Fletcher-Allen has conducted a risk assessment and developed a detailed remediation plan, the likelihood of achieving compliance is relatively high. (4) We need to examine the pace of Fletcher-Allen’s progress on this issue, which increases the likelihood of achieving year-round compliance.
IS-supported programs Most of the legacy systems are being converted to vendor software that is, or will soon be, Y2K compliant.The PeopleSoft project is expected to go live in January 1999 and is progressing well.The Meditech project was scheduled to start in the fall of 1998 with a goal of going live in June 1999, but the schedule is tight and there is a risk that it will not be completed on time. Related technologies are expected to have all components validated for compliance or retrofitted for compliance by mid-1999. Clinical equipment is scheduled for testing of Level 1 equipment in the second half of 1998, with upgrades to begin in October 1998. Facilities and non-clinical equipment have notified interested parties to begin work.
Compliance is unlikely, the Meditech project has a very tight schedule and may not be completed on time, and some Y2K projects have been delayed to prioritize the completion of other high priority projects. Although a Y2K working group and steering committee was formed, it was not able to gain full senior management support and attention, affecting the pace at which the project could move forward.
Fletcher-Allen had made progress in several areas by June 1998, but there were still significant challenges to achieving full-year 2000 compliance by December 31, 1999. I give an 80% chance of achieving full-year compliance.
1. IS-Supported Application: Most older systems were being converted to vendor software, which was already or soon to be Y2K-compliant.
However, there were concerns about replacement projects being completed in time, such as the Meditech project. It was uncertain whether the entire job could be completed by that time, and there was a possibility of needing to ask Jennings Consulting to remediate the HIS applications, which would incur additional costs.
2. Technical (hardware and software tools): Wyman allowed Eary’s Technical Support group to defer some year 2000 work, pending. completion of their Basic Infrastructure project.
3. Telecommunications: The telephone network was scheduled to be replaced, presumably resulting Y2K-compliant network software, switches, and other elements.
Fletcher-Allen did not have a test environment to assess telecommunications equipment, so it was important to get some form of independent validation of vendor claims. It was also possible that the network replacement project would be scaled back due to budgetary constraints.
4. Independent (departmental) Applications: Application owners realized their responsibility to contact relevant vendors and do the necessary remediation and testing.
However, actual progress toward compliance appeared minimal at that point, and many managers who were responsible for these applications had changed due to the spring reorganization.
5. Clinical Equipment: Fletcher-Allen subscribed – for $15,000 — to VHA, a subscription-based service of the Volunteer Hospital Association. Jodi Kanter sent a list of 4000 questionable devices to VHA. VHA was to match that list against their files (data gathered from manufacturers and other hospitals) and produce Y2K status reports for all items that matched up.
While some devices had been identified as non-compliant and would be tested after a fix was supplied, many more devices needed to be analyzed to determine their compliance status. Funding for upgrading to compliant devices was also a concern, as some manufacturers did not offer free upgrades.
6. Facilities and Non-Clinical Equipment: Two full-time employees were budgeted to begin an inventory of facilities devices and systems (such as building access systems and environmental controls). Where appropriate, manufacturers would be contacted. Since many of Fletcher Allen’s 50 buildings were leased, letters were also sent to building owners to identify Y2K issues in their facilities.
7. Payors: Geoffrey Tolzmann planned to send letters to 14 key payors, requesting information on their Y2K compliance programs. Tolzmann was inserting Y2K compliance clauses in all new contracts.
8. Suppliers: Paul Leible (director of Materials Management) oversaw the purchasing of thousands of medical and pharmaceutical supplies from 183 “critical” vendors.
A formidable task ahead to achieve compliance.
According to the facts in the case, by June 1998 Fetcher-Allen had made some progress in identifying and mitigating the risk of the Y2K vulnerability. Here is some concrete evidence to support this conclusion:
1. IS-Supported Applications: Most older systems were being converted to vendor software, which was alreadyor soon to be Y2K-compliant.
2, Technical (hardware and software tools) : According to Sadlemire, Eary’s technical support group was allowed to delay some Y2K work to complete infrastructure projects. This means that they have started some Y2K work and are already making some progress.
3, Telecommunications: Fletcher-Allen plans to replace the telephone network to ensure that network software, switches, and other elements are Y2K compliant. They also sent letters to key vendors requesting detailed Y2K compliance information. This shows that they have started working with suppliers to ensure compliance with the equipment.
4. Independent (departmental) Applications: Sadlemire told Boudewyns that application owners realize they have a responsibility to contact the relevant vendor for fixes and testing. Although actual compliance progress seems limited, at least the importance of the problem has been recognized.
5. Clinical Equipment: Fletcher-Allen has formed a group to identify medical devices with date-sensitive microprocessors. Team leader Wally Elliott reported that Fletcher Allen used nearly 6,000 devices, representing as many as 400 different manufacturers and 1,000 different models. About 2,000 devices, such as heating pads and pneumatically controlled ventilation fans, have no electronic components and therefore do not have Y2K problems. Of the remaining 4,000 devices, some – like some electrocardiogram monitors – do contain date sensitive processors. They have subscribed to a service to get Y2K status reports for their devices. This indicates that they have started to analyze the device and have taken some steps to address potential Y2K issues.
6, Facilities and Non-Clinical Equipment: Fletcher-Allen has begun an inventory of facility equipment and systems and is in contact with manufacturers to understand Y2K issues.
7. Payors: Geoffrey Tolzmann planned to send letters to 14 key payors (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, other insurance carriers), requesting information on their Y2K compliance programs.
8. Suppliers: Paul Leible (director of Materials Management) oversaw the purchasing of thousands of medicaland pharmaceutical supplies from 183 “critical” vendors, plus many small vendors.
By June 1998, Fletcher-allen had made significant progress in identifying and mitigating its risk of Y2K errors. They have completed an inventory of all hardware and software systems to identify non-compliant systems and begin to fix the problems identified. In addition, they set up a dedicated team to solve Y2K problems and ensure that the new systems purchased comply with Y2K standards. However, the likelihood of achieving full-year 2000 compliance is low, as there are still many challenges, such as delays in the implementation of replacement projects for non-compliant systems, and budget constraints that lead to the refurbishment of old systems rather than the purchase of new ones.
By June 1998, Fetcher-Allen had made some progress in identifying and mitigating their Y2K bug risks, but they were not yet fully prepared. They had conducted an initial assessment to identify critical systems and had started to inventory their IT assets. However, they were still in the early stages of remediation and testing. Specific evidence from the case indicates that they had not yet completed the full inventory of all systems and were still developing a comprehensive plan for addressing the identified risks.
By June 1998, they had counted the medical equipment and confirmed that 2000 of them did not have Y2K issues, while the rest needed further analysis. The inventory of facilities, equipment, and systems is expected to be completed in the summer of 1998. The technical system evaluation is also ongoing, and the desktop hardware and software evaluation has been completed. Other evaluations are also about to be completed. And communication regarding Y2K compliance has begun with major suppliers and payers.
Based on the current situation, The likelihood of Fletcher Allen achieving full year compliance for 2000 before December 31, 1999 is not high, as most equipment testing has not yet been completed and time is tight. Finally, it may be delayed for a period of time.
The progress achieved is mainly reflected in:First, Supporting applications: On the grounds that “large application Hospital information systems (HIS), including 800,000 lines of assembly code, are currently being analyzed to identify and resolve Y2K issues,” many older systems have or will meet the Y2K requirements of new vendor software. Secondly,Technical tools: On the grounds that “115 different software tools were developed, but many needed to be upgraded or replaced to comply with Y2K standards”, progress was slow as the technical support team focused on other high-priority infrastructure projects.Lastly, Clinical devices and facilities: Based on the “compilation of a list of nearly 6,000 medical devices to identify devices with date-sensitive microprocessors in need of repair,” the team is likely to focus its efforts on medical devices, and the pace of progress is likely to gradually accelerate.
Full compliance in 2000 is unlikely because:First, the complexity of hospital systems and equipment: hospitals have a wide variety of hardware and programming languages, as well as a large number of medical equipment that needs to be evaluated and repaired. This complexity can make it difficult for all systems to be compatible in a timely manner.Then, dependence on suppliers and third parties: Fletcher-Allen relies on suppliers and third parties for many of its systems and equipment, and needs to ensure that these parties also meet requirements. This can involve coordination with multiple vendors, which can be a time-consuming process.Last bu not least, it is necessary to understand the company’s previous understanding of and response to Y2K issues. If Fletcher-Allen conducts a risk assessment and has a detailed remediation plan in place, the likelihood of achieving compliance is relatively high.
Fetcher-Allen had made some progress by June 1998, but there were still many problems to be solved. They have started an inspection of medical devices, identified some of the nearly 6,000 devices that may have Y2K issues, and subscribed to the VHAseCURE.net TM service to get Y2K status reports for devices. They also sent letters to key vendors asking for information on their Y2K compliance and began an inventory of facilities and non-clinical equipment. In addition, they are negotiating with suppliers about the cost of upgrading equipment.
I do not think it is highly likely that Fletcher-Allen will achieve full year 2000 compliance by December 31, 1999. Considering that Fletcher-Allen had made some progress by June 1998, but that there were still many issues to be addressed, that many application owners did not recognize their responsibilities, that many device manufacturers did not offer free upgrades, and that budget constraints could result in network replacement projects being scaled back, Although they have begun to examine medical devices and identified some that may have Y2K issues, there are many devices that need further analysis and testing. In addition, many application owners do not seem to fully appreciate the severity of the problem, which can lead to slow progress.
Fetcher Allen has made the following progress in the following areas: 1. They have realized the importance of the Y2K problem and have begun to prepare for it. 2. They have subscribed to the VHAseCURE.netTM service provided by the Volunteer Hospital Association (VHA) to help identify and mitigate Y2K risks. 3. They have completed an initial assessment of nearly 6,000 devices at the hospital and determined that about 2,000 of them do not have electronic components and therefore cannot have a Y2K problem. This discovery significantly reduces the number of devices that require further analysis. 4. For the remaining 4,000 or so devices, including some such as electrocardiogram (EKG) monitors, they do contain date sensitive processors. This means that these devices may be at risk for Y2K and require further analysis to determine whether they are Y2K affected and, if so, whether they are Y2K compliant.
Achieving compliance depends on several factors: 1.VHAseCURE.net “¢The efficiency and accuracy of the service in identifying and reporting Y2K issues. 2.Fetcher Allen’s ability to quickly resolve any identified Y2K issues in its devices and systems. 3. The supplier’s willingness and ability to provide patches, updates or replacements for the affected equipment. 4. The overall complexity of the hospital system and the number of devices to be analyzed and mitigated.
All that said seems unlikely to me.
Based on the information mentioned in the case, by June 1998, Fetcher Allen had completed key steps including upgrading the Burlington network, integrating patient registration, appointments, eligibility and referral applications, and providing links to the integrated billing system, development of new patient data repositories and care management information systems. In addition, they are developing a $13 million regional information network to extend the scope of the expert system to diagnose, evaluate, and manage patient health. These steps indicate that Fetcher-Allen has moved to address the year 2000 issue. However, based on the difficulties and challenges mentioned in the case, such as difficulties in compiling the checklist, incomplete reporting of departmental applications, and compatibility issues with hardware and software,Fetcher -Allen may not have completed all the steps in June 1998. Furthermore, the high priority of some projects may lead to resource allocation problems, which may affect the possibility of Fetcher-Allen to achieve full-year 2000 readiness by December 31,1999. In summary, based on the information provided in the case,Fetcher -Allen had begun to take action to address the year 2000 in June 1998, but may not have completed all the steps. The possibility that Fetcher-Allen achieves full-year 2000 readiness by December 31,1999 could be affected by resource allocation and other challenges.
By June, 1998, Fetcher-Allen had conducted investigation and risk assessment in dealing with the Y2K problem. Bob Saddler had a meeting with 40 department managers and their supervisors, and distributed surveys and risk assessment questionnaires.
Progress includes:
1. Completed the investigation stage and identified the causes of the year 2000 problem.
2. Carry out risk assessment and communicate with department managers.
3. Start analyzing all 107 actions supported by IS organizations.
Fletcher-Allen is unlikely to completely solve the Y2K problem before December 31, 1999, because the project coordinator Sadiemlre is worried about the project progress. Despite the steps of investigation, analysis, testing and migration, Sadiemlre was still worried at the end of the contract, which indicated that some work might not be completed or the progress was not as expected.
In addition, hospitals need to deal with cooperation with third-party suppliers and medical equipment manufacturers to ensure that all equipment and services can meet the Y2K problem solution, which may be complicated and time-consuming.
Fetcher-Allen has made a lot of progress in identifying and mitigating the risk of Y2K vulnerabilities.
The old system is already being converted to Y2K compliant vendor software. Although not all of them are complete, the vast majority of the software is already compliant, and others will soon be compliant with the Y2K standard.
For the current Y2K problem, a professional team has been set up. And the team has been extensively involved in the preliminary qualification of the device and the evaluation of the manufacturer.
In addition, Fetcher Allen is seeking extensive external support. Speed up equipment evaluation through collaboration with the Volunteer Hospital Association.
Based on the facts in the case, Fletcher Allen made significant progress in identifying and mitigating the risk of Y2K vulnerabilities by June 1998. They have completed an inventory of approximately 6000 medical devices and confirmed that 2000 of them have no Y2K issues, while the remaining 4000 require further compliance analysis. In addition, the list of critical task systems was almost completed, and by mid-1999, active project and supplier communication aimed to achieve comprehensive compliance. Their technical system assessment shows that desktop hardware and software assessments have been completed, and network and host assessments are currently in progress. In addition, they began to conduct an inventory of facilities, equipment, and systems, expected to be completed by mid-1998, and have started communicating with key payment parties and suppliers to discuss Y2K compliance issues. However, based on the facts provided in the case study, Fletcher Allen is unlikely to achieve full year compliance for 2000 before December 31, 1999. Key areas, such as independent departmental applications and facilities, require a significant amount of work. The response and testing of many equipment suppliers are still pending, and a comprehensive list of all systems has not been completed. In addition, there are organizational issues, including a lack of urgency among some managers and insufficient support from senior management, resulting in Y2K work being overshadowed by other less critical projects. The project faces the risk of being covered up by other projects.
Therefore, although Fletcher Allen has made significant progress in identifying and mitigating the risk of Y2K vulnerabilities, there are still many challenges and unknown factors, and the project progress is not as expected. Therefore, the likelihood of achieving full year 2000 compliance before December 31, 1999 is relatively low.
By June 1998, Fletcher-Allen had made progress in each step of the Y2K compliance process, but still had significant work to complete.
Step 1:Inventory: The hospital had inventoried many of its systems, including 107 IS-supported applications and over 6000 clinical devices. However, there were still uncertainties about the status of independent departmental applications and some clinical equipment.
Step 2:Analysis: Jennings Consulting had begun analysis of the legacy HIS applications, but analysis of departmental apps and many devices was still pending. Vendor compliance claims also needed to be verified.
Step 3:Remediation: Major replacement projects like Peoplesoft and Meditech were planned, but some projects had tight timelines. Remediation plans for departmental apps and devices were still being developed.
Step 4:Testing: Some testing of new systems had started, but testing of legacy systems, devices, and interfaces was still to be done.
Step 5:Migration: Plans were in place to migrate to new systems, but timelines were aggressive, and there was uncertainty about completing all necessary remediation and testing.
Likelihood of Achieving Full Compliance by December 31, 1999. Given the progress and challenges identified, it is plausible that Fletcher-Allen may achieve full compliance by the end of 1999, but several factors complicate this assessment:
The tight schedules, particularly for the Meditech project and the technical infrastructure work, posed significant risks. Any delays in these critical projects could jeopardize overall compliance efforts.
Despite the recognition of Y2K’s criticality, resource allocation was a challenge. Competing projects and a lack of urgency among some managers threatened to divert necessary resources away from Y2K efforts.
Heavy reliance on vendor assurances for telecommunications and clinical equipment compliance introduced uncertainties.
The need for a stronger sense of ownership and prioritization within the organization was evident. Without more decisive action and commitment to Y2K compliance as a top priority, achieving full compliance would be at risk.
Identifying potential hazards :percher-allen identified about 6,000 tools used in hospitals.
Identificação de perigos potenciais :percher-allen confirmou cerca de 6.000 ferramentas utilizadas em hospitais.
By the year 2000, about 2,000 non-electronic products will no longer be harmful.
No ano 2000, cerca de 2000 produtos não electrónicos deixarão de ser perigosos.
To understand the scale of the problem, it starts with raising awareness.
Para compreender a dimensão do problema, é importante começar por sensibilizar.
Use of external services :Nettm is a subscription service provided by the Hospital Voluntary Association.
Utilização de serviços externos: o Nettm é um serviço de subscrição oferecido por uma associação voluntária de hospitais.
The service compares perchal-allen’s list of faulty devices with data provided by manufacturers and other hospitals.
O serviço compara a lista de equipamentos defeituosos da perchal-allen com os dados fornecidos pelos fabricantes e outros hospitais.
In 2000, Pecher-Allen received a notice about the state of its facilities.
Em 2000, percher-allen recebeu uma notificação sobre o estado de suas instalações.
Device analysis: According to the case study, many devices, such as ECG displays, are equipped with data-sensitive processors.
Análise do dispositivo: de acordo com o estudo de caso, muitos dispositivos, como telas de ecg, estão equipados com processadores sensíveis a dados.
General F. G. Jacobs delivered his opinion in the Sixth Chamber on 10 March 2000.
O advogado-geral f. g. jacobs apresentou as suas conclusões na audiência da sexta secção de 10 de março de 2000.
This analysis was conducted in June 1998.
Esta análise foi realizada em junho de 1998.
Awareness and Planning: Based on a case study, fischer-allen took steps to address this issue in 2000.
Sensibilização e planeamento: com base em estudos de casos, fischer-allen tomou medidas para resolver este problema em 2000.
A leadership group was established in 2000 and a project coordinator was appointed in 2000.
Em 2000, criaram o grupo leader e, em 2000, foram nomeados os coordenadores do projecto.
A meeting with the Patient Management System Improvement Committee (ISPC) is also planned to report on the progress of the project in 2000.
Está também prevista uma reunião com o patient management system improvement committee (ISPC) para apresentar um relatório sobre o progresso do projecto em 2000.
Challenges and uncertainties: Fischer Allen has made progress, but also brought challenges.
Desafios e incertezas: fischer allen fez progressos, mas também trouxe desafios.
This example shows that the project was not carried out as required, there were delays and obstacles.
Este exemplo mostra que os projectos não estão a progredir como é necessário e que existem atrasos e obstáculos.
Furthermore, as late as 2000, the status of many plants was unclear, but Allen continued to analyze and test the correlation between the two plants.
Além disso, até 2000, o status de muitas fábricas não era claro, mas allen continuou a analisar e testar a correlação entre as duas fábricas.
In June 1998, allen made significant progress in identifying and reducing millennium swamp risks and using external services to identify potential risks to verify that millennium requirements are being met.
Em junho de 1998, a allen fez progressos significativos na identificação e redução dos riscos dos pântanos do milénio e recorrou a serviços externos para identificar riscos potenciais, a fim de verificar se os requisitos do milénio estavam a ser cumpridos.
However, due to problems of concentration and uncertainty, the project did not produce the desired effect.
No entanto, devido a problemas de concentração e incertezas, o projecto não produziu os efeitos esperados.
Fletcher-Allen made some progress in June 1998, but still faced the challenge of achieving full Year 2000 compliance by December 31, 1999. In terms of IS-enabled applications, much of the legacy system IS being converted to vendor software that is already or will soon be Y2K compliant, but there are still concerns about project completion time, such as the Meditech project. On the technical side, Wyman allowed Eary’s technical support team to defer some 2000 work pending completion of basic infrastructure projects. The team has identified nearly 6,000 medical devices from 400 manufacturers and 1,000 different models. Fletcher-Allen has started a risk assessment and classification of the equipment and found that about 2,000 devices have no electronic components and are not affected by the Y2K problem. Of the remaining 4,000 devices, some contain date sensitive processors, but further analysis is needed to determine whether there are Y2K issues and whether they are Y2K compliant. Fletcher-Allen has subscribed to the VHA’s service to speed up device evaluations. In terms of budget and procurement plans, Fletcher-Allen has begun estimating the financial requirements for upgrading to Y2K-compliant equipment. On the payer side, GeoffreyTolzmann plans to send letters to 14 key payers about their Y2K compliance program. On the supplier side, PaulLeible is responsible for sourcing thousands of medical and pharmaceutical supplies from 183 “critical” suppliers and many smaller suppliers.
Based on the information provided in the case, Fletcher Allen Health Care had made some progress in addressing the Year 2000 (Y2K) issue by June 1998, but there were still significant challenges that could potentially hinder achieving full compliance by December 31, 1999.
Progress by June 1998:
1. Inventory Compilation: Sadlemire identified 150 departmental applications needing analysis for Y2K issues, but believed more applications were unreported.
2. Clinical Equipment Assessment: A team identified 2000 devices with no Y2K issues, but analysis of the remaining 4000 devices was ongoing.
3. Facilities and Non-Clinical Equipment Inventory: Efforts began to inventory facilities devices and systems, including contacting building owners for Y2K issues.
Challenges and Likelihood of Achieving Full Compliance by December 31, 1999:
1. Incomplete Inventory: Concerns arose due to incomplete reporting of critical systems, potentially leading to oversight of important areas 8.
2. Testing Challenges: Limited testing capacity for devices, prioritizing life-support technologies, and known non-compliant items, raised concerns about comprehensive compliance testing.
3. Vendor Responses: Challenges with non-compliant equipment, like the $400,000 nuclear medicine device, and lack of manufacturer responses complicated the compliance process.
4. Lack of Awareness and Ownership: Stakeholders’ lack of urgency and ownership towards Y2K compliance posed a risk to progress, as highlighted by Sadlemire.
Given these challenges, including incomplete inventories, testing limitations, vendor responses, and lack of awareness among stakeholders, it seems unlikely that Fletcher Allen Health Care would have achieved full Year 2000 compliance by December 31, 1999. The obstacles of incomplete inventories, testing constraints, and stakeholder awareness suggest significant hurdles to overcome within the remaining timeframe.
By June 1998, Fletcher-Allen had achieved notable progress in identifying and addressing their Y2K risks. They had completed an inventory of approximately 6000 medical devices, with 2000 identified as having no Y2K issues and the remaining 4000 requiring additional compliance analysis. Furthermore, the inventory of mission-critical systems was nearly complete, with ongoing projects and vendor communications aiming for full compliance by mid-1999. Their technical system evaluation indicated that desktop hardware and software assessments had been completed, while network and mainframe evaluations were ongoing.
And I think , based on the facts presented in the case study, it appears unlikely that Fletcher-Allen would have achieved full-year 2000 compliance by December 31. Several challenges remained. Key areas such as independent departmental applications and facility devices required significant work. Vendor responses and testing of many devices were still pending, and a comprehensive inventory of all systems was not yet achieved. There were also organizational issues, including a lack of urgency among some managers and insufficient top-down support, which led to competing priorities that hindered Y2K efforts. The project risked being overshadowed by other less critical projects. Given these substantial obstacles and the relatively short timeline remaining, achieving full compliance by the end of 1999 would have been a daunting challenge.