HI540 Unit 10 Project Closeout Report Example

Met on the Second Attempt: A Unit 10 Project Closeout Report That Checks Every Charter Condition Against Evidence

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HI540: Project Management of Health Information Systems

Unit 10 Project Closeout Report

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Ashby Valley Health, its results and every figure are composite; the sources cited are real.

Purpose

This report closes the perioperative information system rollout at Ashby Valley Health. It verifies the completion conditions written into the Unit 2 charter, compares final cost and schedule with the baselines, transfers ongoing benefits to their operational owners, records lessons the team can support with evidence, and lists everything the next project inherits. The steering committee is asked to accept closure at its next meeting.

Verification of Completion Conditions

Condition 1, implant reconciliation. The charter asked for at least 99 percent agreement between scanned implants and posted charges in two calendar months in a row. Evidence: the revenue integrity reconciliation report for the two months after wave 2 shows 99.3 percent and 99.1 percent. Status: met. The remaining lines were traced to two causes, implants opened and returned unused without being unscanned, and a small set of consignment items still keyed by hand; both are passed to revenue integrity as operating issues. Condition 2, paper-free documentation. The charter asked for thirty surgical days in a row with no paper intraoperative record in any of the 26 rooms. Evidence: the paper audit log kept by perioperative nurse managers at each hospital. Status: met on the second run. The first run began the day after wave 2 and failed on surgical day 19, when Pell Harbor Hospital lost network access for three hours and its five rooms returned to the paper downtime packet. The downtime procedure worked as designed: every implant used during the outage was back-entered within one shift. But paper documentation was, by the charter's wording, used. The clock restarted. The second run ended without a paper record on surgical day 61 after wave 2. The project could have argued that a downtime does not count, but the charter's condition said paper-free, and a closeout that redefines its own conditions cannot be trusted on anything else.

Condition 3, scheduler retirement. The charter asked for the old scheduling product to be shut down, with its history archived and readable, before support ran out. Evidence: the archive read test signed by the health information management director, and the server shutdown record dated twenty-two working days before the end of support. Status: met.

Cost and Schedule

Final cost was 3,286,000 dollars against a ceiling of 3,400,000. The base budget of 3,090,000 was exceeded by 196,000, drawn from the 310,000 contingency: 86,000 for the contract interface analyst, 62,000 for the extended implant mapping review, 31,000 for added command center hours at Pell Harbor, and 17,000 for replacement scanners. The remaining 114,000 of contingency is returned unspent. Wave 1 went live at Ashby Valley Medical Center on working day 196, as baselined. Wave 2 went live at Corbin Hill and Pell Harbor on day 235, nine working days late. The delay came from risk R-09: the dress rehearsal reconciliation showed a 1.8 percent mismatch, above the 1 percent trigger, because Corbin Hill's consignment implants used local item numbers that had not been mapped. The response, a line-by-line review of the affected items, was carried out as planned, and the mismatch at go-live was 0.4 percent. The nine days were taken from the margin before vendor support ended, which still left fifty-five working days for decommission.

Benefits Transfer

Benefits continue after closure and belong to operations. Implant charge capture passes to the revenue integrity director, with the audit baseline of 3.1 percent unbilled and the two closing months attached. Documentation timeliness passes to the perioperative nursing director, with the baseline of 26 hours from surgery to chart and the post-wave average of under one hour. Each owner has agreed to report quarterly to the sponsor for one year.

Lessons Supported by Evidence

The guide to project management treats lessons learned as knowledge to be applied by later work, not filed away (Project Management Institute, 2021), and studies of project organizations find that lessons are often recorded but seldom used (Williams, 2008). Only lessons backed by a specific event are listed here.

1. Loading the resource plan against the enterprise calendar found the interface conflict months before testing; without it, the contract analyst would have been hired too late.

2. The dependency log started after the Unit 8 seminar caught a vendor release inside the testing window, which was deferred at no cost.

3. Validation inside block time worked: orthopedic surgeons finished 1,100 cards three days before the trigger date.

4. Item mapping should have been done per hospital, not per system; the single catalog assumption caused the wave 2 delay.

5. Downtime drills mattered: the Pell Harbor outage was handled without a lost implant, which supports treating downtime as planned scope (Larsen et al., 2018).

Inheritance Register

Each item passes to a named owner for the anesthesia documentation project or for operations.

1. Preference card conversion scripts. Receiving owner: anesthesia project data analyst.

2. The critical path script and its input template. Receiving owner: anesthesia project manager.

3. 412 test scripts from integrated and acceptance testing. Receiving owner: application services testing lead.

4. Roster of 58 super-users with their specialties and hospitals. Receiving owner: perioperative educator.

5. The deferred perfusion record request, with its impact analysis. Receiving owner: anesthesia project manager, for scoping.

6. Seventeen open defects, none rated high, with workarounds documented. Receiving owner: application services director.

7. The dependency log, with all entries current. Receiving owner: anesthesia project manager.

Team Release and Records

Release of the core team follows the order of remaining work. The interface analysts return to infrastructure first, since both feeds have run without a high-priority defect for six weeks. The perioperative informatics nurse stays on for one more month to support the benefit owners while the quarterly reports are set up, then returns to clinical informatics. Super-users keep their role for one more quarter at a reduced stipend, paid from the operating budget rather than the project's, because new staff continue to arrive and the record will keep changing with each vendor release. Project records are filed in the health system's document repository under the project number: the signed charter, all baselines and their change history, the change log, the risk register with closing notes, test evidence, training attendance and this report. The records retention schedule keeps them for seven years. The archive matters for more than audit; the anesthesia project will reuse the schedule template, the risk register's scales and the change control thresholds, and a future reviewer asking why perfusion documentation was deferred will find the impact analysis and the steering decision in one place.

Request for Closure

All three completion conditions are met, final cost is within the ceiling, and every ongoing benefit and open item has a named owner. The steering committee is asked to accept closure and release the team.

References

Larsen, E., Fong, A., Wernz, C., & Ratwani, R. M. (2018). Implications of electronic health record downtime: An analysis of patient safety event reports. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 25(2), 187-191. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx057

Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.

Williams, T. (2008). How do organizations learn lessons from projects, and do they? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(2), 248-266. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2007.912920