HIM 520 Module 8 Policy Short Paper Example

A Policy Written for Occasional Telework: Revising Sycamore Bend's Remote Work Policy for a Mostly Remote HIM Department

[Student Name]

Southern New Hampshire University

HIM 520: Leading as a HIM Professional

Module Eight Short Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.

A Policy Written for Occasional Telework: Revising Sycamore Bend's Remote Work Policy for a Mostly Remote HIM Department

Sycamore Bend Health's remote work policy is two pages long and was written in 2019, when a few coders worked from home one or two days a week. Today about 92 of the health information department's 132 staff work mostly or entirely from home, including coders, record completion staff and release of information specialists from three former hospitals. The policy no longer describes how work is actually done, and it says nothing about several risks that matter now. This paper revises it, following the steps a policy should go through.

The Policy Life Cycle

Good policies move through a cycle: a need is identified, information and input are gathered, a draft is written, reviewers with the right expertise check it, leaders approve it, staff are told and trained, compliance is monitored and the policy is reviewed on a set schedule. The 2019 policy skipped the last step; it had no review date, which is how it fell so far behind practice. The revision follows each step and adds an annual review.

Gaps in the Current Policy

A comparison of the policy with current practice revealed six gaps. Eligibility is undefined, so each former hospital decided differently who could work remotely. Privacy and security are covered in one sentence requiring a password. Timekeeping is not addressed, although most remote staff are hourly. Equipment responsibilities are unclear, and some staff use personal computers. The policy is silent on employees who move to another state. And it says nothing about how remote staff stay connected to their team, which the Module Two exit interviews identified as a reason people left.

Why These Gaps Matter

Each gap carries real risk. Kruse et al. (2017) concluded from the published security literature that hospitals face mounting threats with defenses that often trail other industries, and home networks, shared family computers and printed records are exactly the weak points attackers and accidents exploit. Remote work also affects retention in both directions. The home-work trial run by Bloom et al. (2015) produced better output and fewer resignations, but it also produced volunteers who returned to the office because home felt lonely. Hom et al. (2017) describe how employees' connections to colleagues and the organization help keep them in their jobs, which means a remote policy that ignores connection may undermine the retention benefit remote work can offer.

Gathering Input

The revision drew on three kinds of input. A survey of remote staff, answered by 71 of 92, asked what worked and what was hard; the most common concerns were unclear expectations about availability and feeling left out of decisions. The information security office reviewed home work risks and recommended hospital-managed devices only. Human resources and legal counsel reviewed timekeeping, equipment reimbursement and employment in other states. A draft was then shared with a group of six staff from all three former hospitals, whose comments led to two changes described below.

Revised Provisions

Table 1 summarizes the main provisions of the revised policy.

Table 1. Revised Remote Work Policy Provisions

Note. Provisions drafted by the author with human resources, legal counsel and information security.

What the Revised Policy Does Not Cover

Some questions belong in other documents. Individual schedules and core hours for each team are set by supervisors within the policy's limits, not written into the policy itself, so they can change without a full revision. Accommodations for employees with disabilities who need to work remotely are handled through the system's accommodation process, which the policy references rather than duplicates. And the security controls on hospital devices are specified by the information security office's standards, which change more often than a policy should. Keeping these details out of the policy keeps it short, stable and easier to follow, while pointing staff to where the details live.

Changes Made From Staff Feedback

The staff review group changed the draft in two ways. First, the original draft required cameras on for all meetings; staff pointed out that some share small homes with family members, so cameras are now expected for team meetings and one-on-ones but optional otherwise. Second, the draft said nothing about how remote staff are considered for promotion; staff worried that being out of sight meant being overlooked, so the policy now states that remote and on-site staff are evaluated by the same standards and have equal access to the career ladder.

Communication, Training and Monitoring

The revised policy will be introduced in team meetings by the director rather than by email, with time for questions, followed by a short privacy and security training that every remote employee completes within 30 days. Supervisors will confirm that each remote employee has a hospital-managed device and a private workspace. Compliance will be monitored through device management reports, timekeeping audits and privacy incident reports, and the policy will be reviewed annually or sooner if laws or security threats change.

Conclusion

The 2019 remote work policy failed not because it was wrong when written but because no one reviewed it as the department changed. The revision follows the full policy life cycle, closes six gaps, reflects research on security and retention, incorporates staff input and builds in annual review so the policy keeps pace with practice, which is the most important change of all.

References

Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 165-218. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju032

Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 530-545. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103

Kruse, C. S., Frederick, B., Jacobson, T., & Monticone, D. K. (2017). Cybersecurity in healthcare: A systematic review of modern threats and trends. Technology and Health Care, 25(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-161263