NURS 8210 Week 1: Introduction to Health Information Technology Systems and Nursing Informatics
NURS 8210 Week 1 Introduction to Health Information Technology Systems and Nursing Informatics
Week 1: Introduction to Health Information Technology Systems and Nursing Informatics
In 1943, Tom Watson was quoted as saying, “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” Little did this chairman of IBM realize that the advent of computers would revolutionize all facets of society, including health care. The health care industry has used the power of technology to dramatically improve the quality of patient care. Today, bar code scanners document patient medications, robotic machinery is used to perform minimally invasive surgeries, and pill bottles feature audible labels to assist patients in taking the correct medication. As health care continues to change and new innovations appear, what types of skills will nurses need in order to harness the potential of emerging and evolving technologies?
This week you will examine the history of nursing informatics as well as the Technology Informatics Guiding Education Reform (TIGER) initiatives that drive technology education for nurses. Using the TIGER and American Nurses Association guidelines, you also evaluate your own informatics competencies.
Reference: Rinkworks. (n.d.) Things people said: Bad predictions. Retrieved from http://www.rinkworks.com/said/predictions.shtml
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Summarize how informatics has impacted or changed nursing practice
- Evaluate the influence of informatics competencies on quality of care and nursing practice
- Apply online learning resources to professional growth and development
- Compare the contributions of two nursing informatics pioneers
Learning Resources
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.
Required Readings
Course Text: Ball, M. J., Douglas, J. V., Hinton Walker, P., DuLong, D., Gugerty, B., Hannah, K. J., . . . Troseth, M. R. (Eds.) (2011). Nursing informatics: Where technology and caring meet (4th ed.). London, England: Springer-Verlag.
- Chapter 1, “Nursing Informatics: Transforming Nursing”
- Chapter 12, “The Evolving National Informatics Landscape”
Chapter 1 introduces the need for health care reform by detailing cost concerns and future needs of the nursing profession. A look at the beginning stages of the TIGER collaborative is also given, detailing its start at the 2006 Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. Chapter 12 provides an overview of technology’s emergence into the health care industry.
Course Text: American Nurses Association. (2008). Nursing informatics: Scope and standards of practice. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
- “Introduction” (pp. 1–2)
- “Informatics Competencies” (pp. 33–40)

The 2-page excerpt from the introduction offers a brief description of the field of informatics and presents the rationale for referring to the scope and standards throughout your nursing career. The excerpt from the “Informatics Competencies” section uses research and matrices to correlate informatics competencies with the education and roles of nursing professionals.
The authors of this article begin by summarizing the rise of computer development and use. They then examine how technology will build the capabilities of future businesses.
A brief explanation of informatics principles is given in this article.
Examine the initiatives and technological developments that have informed the field of informatics by using this article as a guide.
Required Media
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2011). Transforming nursing and healthcare through technology: What is health informatics? Baltimore, MD: Author.
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 13 minutes.
In this week’s media presentation, the presenters discuss the extensive applications, implications, and benefits of health informatics for patients, practitioners, and health care organizations as a whole.
Accessible player –Downloads– Download Video w/CC Download Audio Download Transcript
Optional Resources
Discussion: Welcome to the Week 1 Small Group Discussion area!
Post your responses to the Small Group Discussion based on the course requirements.
Your Discussion postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA guidelines as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and additional scholarly sources as appropriate. Initial postings must be 250–350 words (not including references).
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 1 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6
To participate in this Discussion:
Week 1 Discussion
Staying Current
Print and web-based media provide many rich and credible resources for staying abreast of the latest trends and issues in health care. As you proceed through the DNP program, you will find that receiving updates via the Internet or mail can continue to support your professional growth as a scholar practitioner.
To prepare:
- Review several resources that provide current information about the latest trends and issues in health care
- Select one that you think is most appropriate for you to stay current on the latest trends and issues in health care
By Day 7
- Subscribe to the resource you selected
- Copy and paste an email or photo of your successful subscription notification/confirmation into a Word document and submit it to the submission link by Day 7.
- NOTE: You are expected to maintain your subscription throughout this course. Review several of the updates you receive to inform your Discussions and Application Assignments.
Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
- Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK1Proj+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
- Click the Week 1 Project link.
- Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK1Proj+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
- If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
- Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7
To submit your Project:
Week 1 Project
Week 2 Assignment: Nursing Informatics Pioneers (3 PAGES, 6 REFERENCES, DEADLINE FRIDAY)
One of the major drivers in recent health care reform legislation is the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act’s (ARRA) HiTech Incentive. This act, passed in 2009, earmarked $22 billion for the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs), with a goal of 100% adoption in all practice settings by the year 2014. The HiTech Act provides an example of the pivotal role that health information technology plays in the delivery of quality health care services. Yet, health information technology is a relatively new field. This Application Assignment provides an opportunity for you to examine the contributions of pioneers in this arena and consider how their contributions have influenced health informatics and nursing practice today.
To prepare:
- Visit the AMIA Video Library 1: Nursing Informatics Pioneers webpage listed in the Learning Resources.
- Review the biographies and video presentations of pioneers who are of interest to you, or may hold a position that you aspire to achieve.
- Select two nursing informatics pioneers and conduct further research on their contributions.
- Consider how their contributions have influenced health information technology and nursing practice today.
By Day 7 of Week 2
Write a scholarly 3- to 4-page paper comparing two nursing informatics pioneers. Synthesize your thoughts using the bullets below as a guide:
- What are the professional accomplishments of each individual?
- How have their contributions influenced nursing practice?
- How have their contributions shaped the field of nursing informatics?
- What lessons can you take away from their experiences?
- What skills or ideas demonstrated by these leaders might you apply to your professional practice?
Grading Criteria
Document: Week 2 Application 1 Rubric (Word document)
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 2
Week in Review
This week you examined the history of nursing informatics as well as the Technology Informatics Guiding Education Reform (TIGER) initiatives that drive technology education for nurses. Next week you will consider the health information technology needs and viewpoints of stakeholders within an organization and examine the critical role that information systems play in evidence-based practices.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Name: NURS_8210_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |||
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION
Discussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct. |
8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*. |
7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*. |
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*. |
0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*. |
||
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE | 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course. |
7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. |
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course |
0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course. |
||
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION | 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. |
7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature |
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. |
0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas |
||
QUALITY OF WRITING | 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;. |
4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)
Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
0 (0%) – 3 (10%)
Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
||
Total Points: 30 | ||||||
Name: NURS_8210_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

NURS 8210 Week 1: Introduction to Health Information Technology Systems and Nursing Informatics Grading Rubric
Performance Category | 100% or highest level of performance
100% 16 points |
Very good or high level of performance
88% 14 points |
Acceptable level of performance
81% 13 points |
Inadequate demonstration of expectations
68% 11 points |
Deficient level of performance
56% 9 points
|
Failing level
of performance 55% or less 0 points |
Total Points Possible= 50 | 16 Points | 14 Points | 13 Points | 11 Points | 9 Points | 0 Points |
Scholarliness
Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic topics. |
Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three or more of the following elements
|
16 Points | 14 Points | 13 Points | 11 Points | 9 Points | 0 Points | |
Application of Course Knowledge
Demonstrate the ability to analyze and apply principles, knowledge and information learned in the outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations |
Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in the all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three of the following elements
|
10 Points | 9 Points | 6 Points | 0 Points | |||
Interactive Dialogue
Initial post should be a minimum of 300 words (references do not count toward word count) The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each (references do not count toward word count) Responses are substantive and relate to the topic. |
Demonstrated all of the following:
|
Demonstrated 3 of the following:
|
Demonstrated 2 of the following:
|
Demonstrated 1 or less of the following:
|
||
8 Points | 7 Points | 6 Points | 5 Points | 4 Points | 0 Points | |
Grammar, Syntax, APA
Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing. The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition Error is defined to be a unique APA error. Same type of error is only counted as one error. |
The following was present:
AND
AND
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
0 Points Deducted | 5 Points Lost | |||||
Participation
Requirements |
Demonstrated the following:
|
Failed to demonstrate the following:
|
||||
0 Points Lost | 5 Points Lost | |||||
Due Date Requirements | Demonstrated all of the following:
A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT. |
Demonstrates one or less of the following.
A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT. |