Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

Discussion: Interaction Between Nurse Informaticists and Other Specialists

Discussion: Interaction Between Nurse Informaticists and Other Specialists

 

RE: Discussion – Week 3

Initial Post

          Nursing informatics has evolved into a discipline that is involved in a large number of essential healthcare decisions. Recent proof of this was obvious during the pandemic’s peak earlier this year, when telehealth and other virtual services became a primary source of healthcare delivery. Nursing informatics, according to Sipes (2016), “supports judgments in all positions, functions, and contexts…” I regularly observe this interdisciplinary teamwork inside the organization with which I work. I had the honor of caring for the mother of one of the nurse informatics instructors at the organization for which I work a few weeks ago. While caring for her mother, I sought out networking opportunities and presented myself to this NI instructor, explaining that I am currently getting an MSN in informatics.

Since then, she has encouraged me to shadow her several times, and this is a process that is ongoing. Indeed, I spent a few hours today, Monday December 14th, 2020, shadowing her. Throughout this assignment, I was able to observe the nursing informatics team’s interprofessional partnerships with the rest of the hospital. A problem I observed this connection in relation to the CERNER electronic health record platform. Recently, there have been some unexpected “downtimes,” and it appeared as though this may happen again this morning.

The informatics office received numerous phone calls from units inquiring about CERNER’s status, including physicians, charge nurses, and even the pharmacy department. The NI educator was receiving alerts from the cooperating office with real-time updates to share with the units. We then circled the hospital with another NI and a Physician Clinical Informaticist, where I witnessed the informatics team approach each unit leader, providing an update and answering any questions they may have about the current state of the CERNER delay.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:Discussion: Interaction Between Nurse Informaticists and Other Specialists

            Among the many responsibilities that nurses have, one of the most important yet biggest frustrations come from EHR

Discussion Interaction Between Nurse Informaticists and Other Specialists

Discussion Interaction Between Nurse Informaticists and Other Specialists

documentation burdens that can interrupt patient care. (Boyle et al., 2019) states that two important points to address are “1) implementing true interprofessional teams to improve communication and quality of care and 2) addressing the documentation burden, usability, and interoperability issues of electronic health records through redesign”. I not only experience the frequent EHR interruptions with CERNER, but I also got to witness what it was like for the informatics team to address it in real-time. The organization I work for is in the early implementation phases of transferring the EHR system from CERNER to EPIC. Currently, there are three major databases that are used within the 50 hospital campuses, and 1,200 acute care centers (Cohen, 2020). By switching to EPIC, all of the health records will be accessible, making it easier to provide more patient-centered care because there will a more fluid process with interprofessional communication.(McGonigle & Mastrain, 2018, Chapter 25) points out the importance of patient-centered in regard to inter-professional relationships that are “woven together through the material and immaterial resources available in specific organizational contexts”

            A recommendation I have for the organization is to include the floor nurses and other staff members during their early implementation phases of the EPIC transition. I am aware of their need for “superusers” because I have expressed much interest in becoming a superuser. However, I would suggest creating more of awareness during the early stages so that there is a sense of enthusiasm among the staff members to embrace this change. Such a change is not always welcomed, especially for the more seasoned staff members. I plan on working alongside the NI team to help the emergency department become involved and excited about this transition. The nursing informatics field is bound to continuously grow and become engaged in project developments that impact patient care on a large platform. As technology improves and medical advancements are made, there will always be room for nurse informaticists to provide valuable input.

References

Boyle, D. K., Baernholdt, M., Adams, J. M., McBride, S., Harper, E., Poghosyan, L., & Manges, K. (2019). Improve nurses’ well-being and joy in work: Implement true interprofessional teams and address electronic health record usability issues. Nursing Outlook, 67(6), 791–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2019.10.002

Cohen, J. K. (2020). Adventhealth dropping Cerner, Athenahealth EHRs for EPIC. Modern Healthcare, 50(7). https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=ee20cd36-009f-4569-897c-07afe7f634cb%40sessionmgr4006&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=edsgcl.614407797&db=edsgea

McGonigle, D., & Mastrain, K. G. (2018). Nursing Informatics and the foundation of knowledge (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Mosier, S., Roberts, D., & Englebright, J. (2019). A systems-level method for developing nursing informatics solutions. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 49(11), 543–548. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000815

Sipes, C. (2016). Project Management: Essential skill of nurse informaticists. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 225, 252–256. https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=724dd4e7-7035-49e4-b99d-7f8efd41be65%40pdc-v-sessmgr05

Discussion: Interaction Between Nurse Informaticists and Other Specialists

Nature offers many examples of specialization and collaboration. Ant colonies and bee hives are but two examples of nature’s sophisticated organizations. Each thrives because their members specialize by tasks, divide labor, and collaborate to ensure food, safety, and general well-being of the colony or hive.

Of course, humans don’t fare too badly in this regard either. And healthcare is a great example. As specialists in the collection, access, and application of data, nurse informaticists collaborate with specialists on a regular basis to ensure that appropriate data is available to make decisions and take actions to ensure the general well-being of patients.

In this Discussion, you will reflect on your own observations of and/or experiences with informaticist collaboration. You will also propose strategies for how these collaborative experiences might be improved.

To Prepare:

  • Review the Resources and reflect on the evolution of nursing informatics from a science to a nursing specialty.
  • Consider your experiences with nurse Informaticists or technology specialists within your healthcare organization.

By Day 3 of Week 3

Post a description of experiences or observations about how nurse informaticists and/or data or technology specialists interact with other professionals within your healthcare organization. Suggest at least one strategy on how these interactions might be improved. Be specific and provide examples. Then, explain the impact you believe the continued evolution of nursing informatics as a specialty and/or the continued emergence of new technologies might have on professional interactions.

Discussion: Interaction Between Nurse Informaticist and Other Healthcare Specialists

Nursing informaticists play a pivotal role in researching and analyzing administrative and clinical performance analytics (McGonigle & Mastrian, 2015). This is important for tracking interventions and outcomes. In my workplace, I have experienced an interaction between nurse informaticists and other healthcare specialists on various occasions. Most importantly, nurse informaticists often interact with the administration to design, implement, and adjust the health information system software that is used to run communication at our facility. They then train each staff member on how to retrieve and access and share patient information without breaching the confidentiality rule. It has promoted end-to-end treatment and continuity of care as it aligns nursing based practice with clinical workflow.

One way in which interactions between nurse informaticists and other specialists might be improved is by training all the employees on how to utilize the information systems available for better patient outcomes (McGonigle& Mastrian, 2015). Secondly, collaborative practice is key in embracing the unique role of each employee at the workplace. Therefore, the organization should establish and maintain employee relationships as well as employee-employer relationships. Lastly, the interaction may also be fostered when every employee in the work environment has an access to a computer. Organizations need to add more electronics required for better patient outcomes.

Due to fast technological advancement and its application in the healthcare sector, we expect a huge impact on healthcare practice in terms of outcomes and quality (Cynthia & Tim, 2019). Headways in the future of nursing informatics will center on automated clinical and patient data records, simplified data collection, improved operations in healthcare facilities, and real-time access to data at any time. All these are evidenced by the emergence of artificial intelligence and remote monitoring technologies like remote blood sugar monitors. This substantiates the essence of us as front liners in healthcare having easy and open communications with the designers and builders of NI and EHR departments.

 

References

Cynthia, J., & Tim, R. (2019). Transformations in health information technology and the impact on patient experience. Patient Experience Journal, 6(2), 5-8.

McGonigle, D. (2017). Nursing informatics and the foundation of knowledge (4th Ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

McGonigle, D., & Mastrian, K. G. (Eds.). (2015). Nursing informatics and the foundation of knowledge. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

By Day 6 of Week 3

Respond to at least two of your colleagues* on two different days, offering one or more additional interaction strategies in support of the examples/observations shared or by offering further insight to the thoughts shared about the future of these interactions.

*Note: Throughout this program, your fellow students are referred to as colleagues.

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 3 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 3

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 3 Discussion

RE: Discussion – Week 3

I do absolutely support to your post especially when you have mentioned that “Amongst the many responsibilities that nurses have, one of the most important yet biggest frustrations come from EHR documentation burdens that can interrupt patient care. (Boyle et al., 2019) states that two important points to address are “1) implementing true interprofessional teams to improve communication and quality of care and 2) addressing the documentation burden, usability, and interoperability issues of electronic health records through redesign”.  The negative aspect of nurse informatics is that it disregards the face-to-face assessment interaction amongst the healthcare team.

Group presentations are often helpful because it allows mutual information sharing, memorizing important data, and highlights problems (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2014).  While on a positive note, team members can appreciate other viewpoints while expanding knowledge of certain situations. These strategies would allow interaction with CIS to improve on areas needed additional data collection advancing technology within the organization.   Therefore, the continued development of nursing informatics has an affirmative impact on professional interactions.  This will allow continual education and interaction with other healthcare professionals, keeping them abreast of changes within the system.  This interaction also shapes trust amongst all disciplines and count on one another for the up-to-date information and data collection.

In the words of McGonigle & Mastrian, nurses are considered knowledgeable engineers, designers and developer, who implement and maintain knowledge (2017). To accomplish these characteristics, the nursing force needs professional interaction with the nursing informatics specialist. This interaction not only exists in healthcare settings, but in the business settings as well.  These types of telecommunication will continue to exist as long as there is technology with room for advancement.

References

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving      university instruction by basing practice on validated theory.  Journal on Excellence in  University Teaching. 25(4). 1-26.

McGonigle, D., & Mastrian, K.G. (2017).  Nursing informatics and the foundation of knowledge(4th ed.).  Burlington, MA:  Jones & Bartlett Learning.

RE: Discussion – Week 3

            What a topical and amazing opportunity you had! Just as we begin a class focused on nursing informatics, you stumble upon one who takes you in? That’s amazing and I’m incredibly jealous of your luck! Interestingly enough, I have seen a few posts about CERNER in this discussion, so I’m curious as to the pros and cons of this electronic health program.

It seems as though your institution was able to manage this issue of the downtimes in a manner that pleased the staff, but were they able to get to the bottom of the random downtimes? One thing I’ve noticed in my workplace is the de-escalation factor of rising issues without actual resolve. For example, if multiple units are complaining about a similar issue, management may come around and give an answer that doesn’t exactly address the underlying issue but manages to decrease the frustration of the issue. Nursing informaticists must be able to have the discussions that occur within a disciplinary team in order to keep a constant flow of information and updates. In our weekly resources, Carolyn Sipes states that “discussion is the most important trait” (2016) for this exact reason. Keeping the team updated on current issues and solutions can lead to improved patient outcomes.

Your suggestion for including floor nurses in the early phases into the transition into a new electronic health program makes perfect sense. My health system is currently implementing education for a transition into the use of EPIC. In the earlier phases of the implementation, my health system selected “superusers”, but this idea ultimately failed. The people selected for the “superuser” class openly refused the responsibility, claiming that more nurses should be involved versus having mandated nurses be experts. This led to floor nurses being involved in the early phases which in turn created a volunteer basis for the “super user” title. Although we have not implemented EPIC as of yet, this is believed to produce better results. As quoted from one of our weekly resources, “leadership engagement is a key component of the implementation process” (Mosier,S et al., 2019). Leadership needs to be aware of the demands of the staff nurse in order for these things to work as fluently as they hoped, which it seems like your health system has (and mine hopes to get to).

References

Mosier, Sammie, DHA, MA, BSN, NE-BC, CMSRN, BC, Roberts, Wm., Dan PhD, RN, et al. (2019). A Systems-Level Method for Developing Nursing Informatics Solutions: The Role of Executive Leadership. Journal of Nursing Administration, 49, 543-548. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000815

Sipes, C. (2016). Project Management: Essential Skill of Nurse Informaticists. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics225, 252–256.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_5051_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Second Response
Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Participation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_5051_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric

Name:  Discussion Rubric

  Excellent

90–100

Good

80–89

Fair

70–79

Poor

0–69

Main Posting:

Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s).

Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three current credible sources.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to most of the Discussion question(s).

Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible references.

31 (31%) – 34 (34%)

Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).

One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Cited with fewer than two credible references.

0 (0%) – 30 (30%)

Does not respond to the Discussion question(s).

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible references.

Main Posting:

Writing

6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely.

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely.

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely.

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Posting:

Timely and full participation

9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts main Discussion by due date.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts main Discussion by due date.

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main Discussion by due date.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post main Discussion by due date.

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Responds to questions posed by faculty.

The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

First Response:

Writing

6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.

Response is written in standard, edited English.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Response to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

First Response:

Timely and full participation

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.

Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Responds to questions posed by faculty.

The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Second Response:
Writing
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.

Response is written in standard, edited English.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Response to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response:
Timely and full participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.

Posts by due date.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation.

Posts by due date.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation.

Does not post by due date.

Total Points: 100

Name:  Discussion Rubric

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.