⚠️ Translation Notice:
This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected:
F7, F8, F9, F10
Findings and Recommendations
5 findings
Current County policy requires that all requests for enterprise projects complete the risk assessment included within the formal Automation Project Assessment Questionnaire (APAQ) document. This office would agree that, at the time of approval of the APAQ, a more in-depth analysis of the risks associated with the Electronic Health Records (EHR) project was warranted. However, during the implementation of the EHR project, risk was assessed at various levels throughout County operations, including periodic Information Technology Committee (ITC) meetings, and ultimately impacts and risks to systems were identified and addressed.
Related Recommendations (1)
This office supports the recommendation.
Once a project has received approval and implementation has begun, the ITC has the responsibility of reviewing progress status reports provided by identified project managers and making recommendations based upon this review. In the case of the EHR project, managers provided periodic updates on project costs, schedule, and risks identified. Based on status reports provided and risks identified, corrective actions were recommended which ultimately led to EHR project completion.
Related Recommendations (1)
This office partially supports the recommendation. The practice of tracking labor costs associated with medium- and large-size projects is regularly followed and often required where grant or special funding is utilized. Additionally, tracking labor costs for the purpose of capitalizing such costs is also a current practice followed by the County. The ability to engage an independent audit, where the necessity to do so has been identified, is a good measure to ensure all project costs, labor and otherwise, have been properly identified and classified for capitalization and funding purposes. Signed Date: August 4, 2015 V.S. Buran, MPPA Auditor-Controller County of Ventura Number of pages attached: 2
EHR project codes were established and used in the Ventura County Human Resources/Payroll System (VCHRP) and in the Ventura County Financial Management System (VCFMS) to track project costs. This office is currently engaged in the audit of all costs associated with this project. Once completed, total implementation costs associated with this project will be identified.
No recommendations for this finding
Original staffing requirements may have been underestimated; however, when shortages were identified, corrective action was taken. As for the accuracy of County labor hours and costs, EHR project codes were established and used in VCHRP and VCFMS to track project costs. This office is currently engaged in an audit of all costs associated with this project and our report, once released, will address labor costs. El-08: This office has not been provided with the documentation referenced by the Grand Jury. However, EHR project codes were established and used in VCHRP and VCFMS. This office is currently engaged in an audit of all costs associated with this project and our report, once released, will identify total EHR project implementation costs.
No recommendations for this finding
The more than $71 million in EHR project costs approved by the Board of Supervisors includes approximately $19 million of non-implementation costs associated with a 10-year remote hosting agreement. Thus, over $52 million has been identified as authorized project implementation costs. This office is currently engaged in an audit of all costs associated with this project and our report, once released, will identify total costs associated with the implementation of this project. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations numbered R-03 and R-04 Note: The recommendations noted above were addressed to the Board of Supervisors, thus this office either supports the recommendation in whole or partially.
No recommendations for this finding
Agency Responses
1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations.
Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
No Responses Found
1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
