Demo Staff Training Initiative
Impact analysis
Calculated from the submitted answers by fixed rules.
51/ 100
Wide or unresolved enough to need coordination above one department.
- Recommended review route
- Operations Leadership
- Highest individual impact identified
- Moderate
- What drove this score
- Implementation complexity · How severely those areas are affected · Departments affected
Where the points came from
- How many areas are affected5.5 / 15
4 of the 11 listed areas were rated above N/A.
- How severely those areas are affected7.5 / 15
Across the 4 areas that were rated, the average is 1.5 on the Minor-to-Major scale. Areas marked N/A are excluded here — they are counted in the breadth dimension above.
- Departments affected6.0 / 15
2 of 5 departments were selected.
- Operational categories affected3.8 / 10
3 of the 8 operational categories were answered Yes.
- How many stakeholder groups are affected5.0 / 10
4 of the 8 stakeholder groups were rated above N/A.
- How severely those groups are affected5.8 / 10
Across the 4 groups that were rated, the average is 1.8 on the Minor-to-Major scale.
- Compliance and risk position6.0 / 10
Compliance review: needs_evaluation. Risk assessment: needs_evaluation. A completed risk assessment scores zero here — the points reflect what is outstanding.
- Implementation complexity11.0 / 15
Training yes, pilot needs_evaluation, rollback plan no, 2 communication methods, go-live in 69 days.
This score reflects the breadth and severity of the structured impacts identified in the request. Written descriptions provide review context but do not directly change the score.
How this was calculated
Each dimension is scored against its own maximum and the eight are added together. Grid questions are read twice, once for breadth and once for severity, because those are different questions with different denominators:
- Breadth counts rows marked N/A in the denominator. That is what makes a change touching one of eleven areas read as narrow, and a change touching eight read as wide.
- Severity excludes them. One area hit as hard as possible is fully severe; it should not read as mild merely because the form lists eleven areas.
The highest individual impact identified above is a fact about the answers, not a second classification. Its role in the calculation is to trigger the escalation floors below.
- Weighted total
- 50.5 / 100
- After escalation floors
- 50.5 → displayed as 51
- Classification bands
- Minor below 50 · Moderate 50–74 · Major 75 and above
- Scoring version
- change-impact-score-v1
These weights are a draft. They were proposed for review and have not been approved as IDEL policy. Changing them produces a new scoring version, so past scores keep meaning what they meant when they were calculated.
Overview
- Organization
- Test Community Health
- Requestor
- Test Submitter One
- Role
- Clinical Staff
- Executive sponsor
- To Be Assigned Later
- Date submitted
- Jul 8, 2026
- Target go-live
- Sep 15, 2026in 40 days
- Departments impacted
- Clinical Staff, Human Resources
- Rationale
- Quality Improvement, Operational Efficiencies
- Assigned reviewer
- Test Reviewer One
Description of change
Fictional demonstration record. Introduces a recurring training programme for new and existing staff, with a shared completion record.
Affected areas
- Clinical CareModerate
- TechnologyMinor
- PatientsMinor
- Community PartnersModerate
Description of impact
Training sessions, a completion record, and a refresher schedule.
Compliance and risk
- Is a regulatory or compliance review required?
- Need to evaluate
- Has a Risk Assessment been completed?
- Needs to be evaluated
Operational impact
- Clinical CareYes
- IT & DataNo
- Finance & Revenue CycleNo
- Patient Access & ExperienceNo
- Workforce & StaffingYes
- Operational & AdminYes
- Equity & AccessNo
- OtherNo
Stakeholders
- ProvidersModerate
- Nursing StaffModerate
- HRModerate
- AdminMinor
Engagement strategy
Session dates agreed with each department lead.
Training, communication, and implementation
- Training required
- Yes
- Training formats
- Live Sessions
- Communication methods
- Department Meeting(s), Email update(s)
- Pilot
- Needs Evaluation
- Rollback plan
- No
- Target go-live
- Sep 15, 2026
Review activity
- Test Reviewer OneJul 12, 2026, 8:45 AM
Returned for revision: please confirm whether a compliance review is required, and complete the risk assessment before resubmitting.
History
- DraftTest Submitter One · Jul 1, 2026, 9:00 AM
- Draft → SubmittedTest Submitter One · Jul 8, 2026, 1:10 PM
- Reviewer assignedTest Reviewer One · Jul 12, 2026, 8:45 AM
- Submitted → Under ReviewTest Reviewer One · Jul 12, 2026, 8:45 AM
- Under Review → Returned for RevisionTest Reviewer One · Jul 12, 2026, 8:45 AMConfirm whether a compliance review is required, and complete the risk assessment before resubmitting.
- Comment addedTest Reviewer One · Jul 12, 2026, 8:45 AM
Workflow
Recommended next steps
For a Moderate change. Current status: Returned for Revision.
- 1.Operations Leadership review
- 2.Confirm cross-department impacts
- 3.Resolve any outstanding compliance or risk evaluation
- 4.Confirm training and communication plans
- 5.Confirm implementation and rollback preparation
These steps follow from the impact level. They are recommendations — the platform does not record any of them as complete, and none of them is an approval.
Established impact logic
The earlier reading, kept for continuity. The official classification is the impact score above.
- Highest individual impact identified
- Moderate
- Recommended review route
- Operations Leadership
How this was reached
- Highest affected-area impact: Moderate.
- Highest stakeholder impact: Moderate.
- Overall impact is the higher of the two: Moderate.
- Recommended review route: Operations Leadership. Overall impact: Moderate. This is a routing recommendation and does not record an approval decision.
Compliance and risk
- Compliance review requirement not yet determined
Whether a regulatory or compliance review is required has not been established.
- Risk assessment status not yet determined
Whether a risk assessment is needed has not been established.
Implementation readiness
- Pilot decision unresolved
Whether a pilot is required before go-live has not been determined.
- No rollback plan identified
No rollback plan has been identified for this change.
- Moderate areas
- 2
- Major areas
- 0
- Moderate stakeholders
- 3
- Major stakeholders
- 0
- Unresolved items
- 3
- Days to go-live
- 69
These figures describe the answers; they are not a second classification. This request has one official classification, shown with the impact score above. The recommended route indicates who should review this change. It does not record that an approval has been given. Calculated by logic revision cia-logic-v1 from the answers as submitted.
IDEL internal
- Client
- Test Community Health
- Request id
- req_th_003
- Template version
- change-impact-analysis-v1
- Submitted by (member)
- mem_th_submitter
- Internal notes
- 0 on this request
This panel and every internal note are excluded from client responses by the serializer, not by this page.
Impact reference
- Minor
- Form update, scripting change — Department / Site Manager
- Moderate
- Workflow change across multiple departments — Operations Leader
- Major
- New service line, major EHR change — CEO / Board
Highest individual area rating: Moderate · Highest individual stakeholder rating: Moderate