DNP 805 Assignment Evaluation of Health Care Technology
DNP 805 Assignment Evaluation of Health Care Technology
Details
For this assignment, you will utilize content from the course materials as well as additional qualified resources to synthesize new information which you can apply towards your DPI Project, your future work area or your clinical practice as a DNP-prepared nurse.
General Guidelines:
Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:
- This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
- Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.
- This assignment requires that at least two additional scholarly research sources related to this topic, and at least one in-text citation from each source be included.
- You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
Directions:
For this assignment, write a 1,000-1,250 word paper in which you:
- Select a technology that has been explored in the course.
- Perform an assessment using elements of user-technology interface or human factors methods to determine functionality.
- Using the content in the readings and textbook, list three elements that will be used to evaluate the user-technology interface.
- Select a technology and list the elements that will be evaluated. Include their definition and describe how the element would be measured or evaluated.
- For each element, propose practicable suggestions for improvement using support from the literature.
It may be possible to earn Portfolio Practice hours for this case report. Enter the following after the references section of your paper:
DNP 805 Assignment Evaluation of Health Care Technology
Key points about futures for healthcare
Patients are the reason for healthcare and they should be at the centre of it. This article, however, is about possible technological trends and drivers in healthcare; it should therefore be read in conjunction with patient-cantered perspectives like the Royal College of Physician’s Future Hospital: Caring For Medical Patients report.3
Technology does not have an agenda of helping healthcare, however much we might like to focus on benefits. It develops because of miniaturization, lowering costs of production, and so on, not because it makes people well, but rather because it can find ways of making money and reinvesting it. Koppel and Gordon’s edited book First Do Less Harm is recommended as an overview of issues.4
The pace of change is accelerating: our time travellers from a hundred years ago were surprised at a few things, but had they travelled back in time, with a few minor bumps like William Harvey discovering blood circulation, very little changes all the way back to Hippocrates.
Human nature does not change, at least not on these technological timescales. The authority structures in healthcare, the division of labour, the pretence that clinicians know everything, and other human factors are slow to change. Despite our knowledge of germ theory and antisepsis, we are still resistant to washing our hands.
There are many futures to plan for. As soon as we get to our future, there will be another – and we will increasingly be seeing partially-completed solutions superseded by even better ideas. Today we might be thinking we just need to computerize all patient records, but before we’ve finished doing that some fancy new technology will change what we want to do or how we should do it. For the foreseeable future, we will have to live with fragmented and partially working technologies.
We need to take the future seriously as, literally, it is all we have, and certainly all our children will have – and we can be certain that as we get older, we are going to end up with all the problems of old age. Surely, we want healthcare to improve in the future? We should put effort into future planning, not once, but continuously.
In the rest of this article, we will make repeated comparisons between technological factors and human factors. Often these drivers are not aligned (one of the key messages of this article), and technology is therefore unlikely to develop in ways that are optimal for healthcare on its own accord. Our concepts of ourselves, from conception to death, as individuals, families and as communities, are inextricably linked to technological possibilities. We ought to have a Future Healthcare Institute, which will be kept continually busy prioritizing and reprioritizing principles to guide and align healthcare and technological developments together. One imagines such an institute giving guidance legal and regulatory guidance, for example as has already happened in ad hoc ways in some countries addressing advances such as fertilization technologies.