BHA FPX 4020 Assessment 3 Data Collection and Analysis

• BHA FPX 4020 Assessment 3

Data Collection and Analysis

Addressing Security Breaches in Healthcare

Security breaches significantly threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of sensitive information within healthcare organisations such as Emory University Medical Center (EUMC). Effective data collection and analysis are pivotal in identifying and mitigating these risks. According to Koopmans and Mouter (2020), understanding the root causes of breaches and implementing strategic interventions is essential to safeguard patient data and maintain compliance with legal standards.

This assessment aims to evaluate EUMC’s current practices for collecting and analysing data related to breaches, identifying gaps, and recommending improvements to enhance the organisation’s ability to effectively prevent, detect, and respond to security threats.

Rationale for Using Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)

Why CBA is a Suitable Tool for Tackling Data Breaches

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a powerful decision-making tool that provides a structured framework for evaluating the financial impact of potential solutions to security issues. At EUMC, CBA aids in determining the costs associated with breaches—such as fines, legal expenses, and reputational damage—against the benefits of implementing robust security measures.

CBA supports resource allocation by identifying interventions that offer the greatest return on investment, ensuring that limited funds are directed toward impactful solutions. As Biancardo et al. (2022) highlight, CBA also accounts for tangible and intangible factors, such as time savings, operational efficiencies, and improved patient trust.

Analysing Data with Internal and External Benchmarks

Internal Benchmarking

Internal benchmarks allow organisations to evaluate their current performance relative to past data. For example, EUMC might compare the number of data breaches over time, aiming for a 50% reduction within six months as an internal target (Algarni et al., 2021).

External Benchmarking

External benchmarks, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule, set industry standards for data protection. Compliance with HIPAA ensures that EUMC meets legal obligations while reducing the risk of penalties and enhancing patient trust (Dagher et al., 2019).

EUMC can identify best practices and gaps in its data protection policies by comparing its practices with those of similar organisations. This dual approach ensures the organisation meets internal goals and aligns with industry-wide standards.

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Data Breach Prevention

Enhancing Security Protocols

Cybersecurity experts recommend encryption, access controls, and intrusion detection systems to protect sensitive data. These tools limit unauthorised access and improve the organisation’s ability to detect potential threats early (Stewart, 2022).

Continuous Monitoring and Incident Response

Developing a robust monitoring system allows EUMC to detect and respond to breaches swiftly. Proactive incident response minimises the potential damage to patient confidentiality and the organisation’s reputation (Koopmans & Mouter, 2020).

Compliance with Regulatory Standards

Strict adherence to regulations like HIPAA and GDPR ensures that EUMC mitigates legal risks while protecting patient data. Regular audits and staff training further strengthen the organisation’s commitment to compliance (D’Arcy et al., 2020).

Cybersecurity Awareness Training

Training employees on data security reduces the risk of breaches caused by human error. This initiative enhances staff competence and fosters a culture of accountability in handling sensitive information (Shukla et al., 2022).

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Prevention Strategies

Estimating Costs and Potential Savings

Implementing industry-standard security protocols may cost between $200,000 and $900,000, but these measures could save EUMC up to $3 million annually by preventing data breaches. Similarly, compliance with regulatory standards involves upfront costs of $150,000 to $500,000 but averts fines of up to $1.5 million per incident.

Table: Cost vs. Savings for Data Breach Prevention

Scholarly Justifications for Recommendations

Evidence-Based Insights

Encryption and access control are essential for protecting sensitive data, as noted by Alkinoon et al. (2021). These measures comply with industry norms and enhance trust. Continuous monitoring and rapid incident response ensure breaches are addressed before significant harm occurs (Koopmans & Mouter, 2020).

Adhering to HIPAA and GDPR reduces the risk of legal penalties while maintaining ethical standards. Training employees on cybersecurity protocols fosters a proactive approach to data security, reducing the likelihood of human error (Shukla et al., 2022).

Conclusion

This BHA FPX 4020 Assessment 3 highlights the importance of robust data collection and analysis practices to prevent and mitigate security breaches at EUMC. By leveraging tools such as Cost-Benefit Analysis, implementing evidence-based security measures, and adhering to regulatory standards, EUMC can strengthen its data protection framework, reduce risks, and enhance patient trust.

Continued investment in cybersecurity awareness and advanced monitoring systems will ensure EUMC remains resilient against emerging threats while maintaining compliance and operational efficiency.

Read more about our sample BHA FPX 4020 Assessment 2 Health Care Professional Feedback for complete information about this class.

References

Ahmad, A., Desouza, K. C., Maynard, S. B., Naseer, H., & Baskerville, R. L. (2019). How integration of cyber security management and incident response enables organisational learning. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(8), 939–953.

https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24311 

Algarni, A. M., Thayananthan, V., & Malaiya, Y. K. (2021). Quantitative assessment of cybersecurity risks for mitigating data breaches in business systems. Applied Sciences, 11(8), 3678.

https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083678 

Alkinoon, M., Choi, S. J., & Mohaisen, D. (2021). Measuring healthcare data breaches. Information Security Applications, 265–277.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89432-0_22 

Bandari, V. (2023). Enterprise data security measures: A comparative review of effectiveness and risks across different industries and organisation types. International Journal of Business Intelligence and Big Data Analytics, 6(1), 1–11.

https://research.tensorgate.org/index.php/IJBIBDA/article/view/3 

Biancardo, S. A., Gesualdi, M., Savastano, D., Intignano, M., Henke, I., & Pagliara, F. (2022). An innovative framework for integrating Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) within Building Information Modeling (BIM). Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 101495.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101495 

Campbell, K., Gordon, L. A., Loeb, M. P., & Zhou, L. (2023). The economic cost of publicly announced information security breaches: empirical evidence from the stock market. Journal of Computer Security, 11(3), 431–448.

https://doi.org/10.3233/jcs-2003-11308 

D’Arcy, J., Adjerid, I., Angst, C. M., & Glavas, A. (2020). Too good to be true: Firm social performance and the risk of data breach. Information Systems Research, 31(4), 1200–1223.

https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2020.0939 

Dagher, G. G., Mohler, J., Milojkovic, M., & Marella, P. B. (2019). Ancile: Privacy-preserving framework for access control and interoperability of electronic health records using blockchain technology. Sustainable Cities and Society, 39, 283–297.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.02.014 

Kampová, K., Mäkká, K., & Zvaríková, K. (2020). Cost-benefit analysis within organisation security management. School of Health Sciences Web of Conferences, 74, 01010.

https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20207401010 

Koopmans, C., & Mouter, N. (2020, January 1). Chapter One – Cost-benefit analysis (N. Mouter, Ed.). ScienceDirect; Academic Press.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2543000920300184 

Kush, R. D., Warzel, D., Kush, M. A., Sherman, A., Navarro, E. A., Fitzmartin, R., Pétavy, F., Galvez, J., Becnel, L. B., Zhou, F. L., Harmon, N., Jauregui, B., Jackson, T., & Hudson, L. (2020). FAIR data sharing: The roles of common data elements and harmonisation. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 107, 103421.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103421 

Mouter, N., Dean, M., Koopmans, C., & Vassallo, J. M. (2020, January 1). Chapter Seven – Comparing cost-benefit and multi-criteria analyses (N. Mouter, Ed.). ScienceDirect; Academic Press.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2543000920300226 

Nield, J., Scanlan, J., & Roehrer, E. (2020). Exploring consumer information-security awareness and preparedness of data-breach events. Library Trends, 68(4), 611–635.

https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2020.0014