Discussion: Welcome to the Week 2 Discussion area!<\/strong><\/h2>\nPost your responses to the Discussion based on the course requirements.<\/p>\n
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<\/a> as appropriate.\u00a0Initial postings must be 250\u2013350 words (not including references).<\/p>\nSubmission and Grading Information<\/strong><\/h2>\nGrading Criteria <\/strong><\/h3>\nTo access your rubric:<\/p>\n
Week 2 Discussion Rubric<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6<\/strong><\/h2>\nTo participate in this Discussion:<\/p>\n
Week 2 Discussion<\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n
Discussion – Week 2 <\/strong>Top of Form Information Architecture<\/strong><\/h2>\nHow do you use health information technology in your daily work activities? Does the CNO in your organization use the same HIT as the nurses at the bedside? What about those individuals who work in admissions? In order to develop an information system that can facilitate the ability to track, share, and analyze patient data, an organization has to take into account the differing needs or views of various departments.<\/p>\n
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/h3>\nIn this Discussion, you consider the differing viewpoints of the professionals within your organization. Imagine what your colleagues\u2019 needs might be and how they might use a HIT system to access and share information to promote evidence-based care. What are the similarities and differences in how this technology would be used by physicians, lab techs, administrators, nurses, informaticians, and others?![\"NURS](\"https:\/\/nursingassignmentcrackers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/4-300x125.png\")
<\/p>\n
To prepare:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n- Review this week\u2019s media presentation, focusing on how the VA\u2019s VistA system demonstrates data flow across an organization.<\/li>\n
- <\/li>\n
- Reflect on your organization\u2019s information architecture and the various information needs of different groups within your work setting. What constraints has your organization faced with implementing health information technology systems that meet everyone\u2019s needs? Consider speaking with your colleagues from different areas about this topic.<\/li>\n
- <\/li>\n
- Ask yourself: How does the flow of data across my organization support, or inhibit, evidence-based practice?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
By Day 3 post<\/strong> a cohesive response that addresses the following:<\/h2>\n\n- Differentiate the information needs within your organization. For example, how might the needs of an administrator differ from the needs of a physician or lab tech?<\/li>\n
- Explain the impact of these different needs on the implementation of HIT in your present organization.<\/li>\n
- Evaluate how the flow of information across HIT systems within your organization supports or inhibits evidence-based practice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Read<\/strong> a selection of your colleagues\u2019 postings.<\/p>\nBy Day 6 respond<\/strong> to at least two<\/strong> of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:<\/h2>\n\n- Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.<\/li>\n
- Share an insight from having read your colleagues\u2019 postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.<\/li>\n
- Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.<\/li>\n
- Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.<\/li>\n
- Make a suggestion based on additional evidence<\/a> drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.<\/li>\n
- Expand on your colleagues\u2019 postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Return<\/strong> to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and\/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.<\/p>\nBe sure to support your work with specific citations from this week\u2019s Learning Resources and any additional sources.<\/em><\/p>\nClick on the Reply<\/strong> button below to post your response.<\/p>\nA Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nTitle: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nEach area of practice lends itself to some common information requirements which can be utilized amongst health care professionals, but there are also areas such as administration that has differing information needs. While watching the VA video, the discussion around the Vista CPRS fully integrated system looked very extensive. They incorporated concepts that were derived from Blum\u2019s and later Graves and Corcoran, which include data (objective), information (subjectively reviewed), and knowledge (formally completed content) (ANA, 2014). Although the Vista CPRS has a bountiful amount of content to support best practice, there are other areas of health needs that are specific and therefore require a unique set of system requirements. In the video, we see that a system was implemented that focused on the needs of the veterans to allow them prescription refills and other personal health needs (United Stats department of Veterans Affairs, 2011).\u00a0 In our area we have three major hospitals networks.\u00a0 The difficulty is that each of these networks have chosen different interfaces as their HIT systems.\u00a0 So a patient can go to two different hospitals in the same day and there is no communication or dialogue around the patients needs.\u00a0 This can become a dangerous situation if this patient was prescribed narcotics from two different health care prescriber and was planning on taking these together.\u00a0 In the hospital network I worked in, we used meditech as our HIT.\u00a0 This HIT system supports some evidence based practice and is great from a lab testing and sharing of patients personal data such as medical history, specific medical orders currently active and previous tests and diagnostics.\u00a0 Where we see it lacking is in the knowledge section.\u00a0 We are using another format of HIT for continuing education, looking up medication knowledge and skills. We would like to click on a patients prescribed medication and then that drug be linked to knowledge that would be applicable to the understanding and administration of it.\u00a0 We now must leave meditech and go into another application for this knowledge. Overall the needs of HIT continue to grow as our knowledge is being transmitted faster than ever before, and our patients\u2019 health complexities also increase with an ageing population. Preparing for current and future trends such as seeing more integration between electronic health records, improved research, artificial intelligence (AI) and the use of robotics will be facilitated by partnerships and education amongst private and public institutions to develop an advancing approach to HIT (Sheikh et al., 2021).<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
ANA. (2014).\u00a0Nursing Informatics\u00a0(2nd Edition). American Nurses<\/p>\n
Association.\u00a0https:\/\/mbsdirect.vitalsource.com\/books\/9781558105812<\/a><\/p>\nSheikh, A., Anderson, M., Albala, S., Casadei, B., Franklin, B. D., Richards, M., Taylor, D.,<\/p>\n
Tibble, H., & Mossialos, E. (2021). Health information technology and digital innovation for national learning health and care systems.\u00a0The Lancet. Digital Health,\u00a03(6), e383\u2013e396. https:\/\/doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org\/10.1016\/S2589-7500(21)00005-4<\/a><\/p>\nUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs. (Producer). (2011). Innovation in VA, the Story<\/p>\n
of VistA [Video]. Washington, DC: Author.<\/p>\n
A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nTitle: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nI do agree with you that an integrated Health Information Technology is the solution to multidisciplinary teams\u2019 collaboration hence reduced chances of medical errors and misinformation among the stakeholders (Alatawi et al., n.d.). HIT allow synchronization of all the health records of a patient creating a wider scope of reference by the medical practitioners when attending to the patients. A qualitative longitudinal approach for HIT adaptation studies has made it easier over time to understand thematic relationships. While thematic connectedness differed at different times because nurses were worried and satisfied, certain trends have been noted. Nurses appeared to be the most unhappy (Knighton et al., 2019). However, several sources of unrest, such as new equipment, sophisticated policies, and enhanced patient safety systems, can be addressed. About 18 months after the HIT execution, the perceptions of nurses seemed more balanced as shown by more consistent thematic frequencies and weaker Gephi coincident. The visual indicator of HIT Adaptation Progress can be a balanced thematic distribution and interconnection within Gephi chart. In order to confirm whether researchers can replicate these findings in other samples, future research is necessary (Zadvinskis et al., 2018).<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
Alatawi, M., Aljuhani, E., Alsuiany, F., & Aljanabi, S. (n.d.). Issue 4 \u2022 1000496 J Nurs Care, an open access journal<\/em>. 8<\/em>. https:\/\/www.hilarispublisher.com\/open-access\/barriers-of-implementing-evidencebased-practice-in-nursing-profession-a-literature-review.pdf<\/a><\/p>\nKnighton, A. J., McLaughlin, M., Blackburn, R., Wolfe, D., Andrews, S., Hellewell, J. L., Moore, R., Edwards, D. P., Allen, T. L., & Srivastava, R. (2019). Increasing Adherence to Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Quality Management in Health Care<\/em>, 28<\/em>(1), 65\u201367. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/qmh.0000000000000195<\/a><\/p>\nZadvinskis, I. M., Garvey Smith, J., & Yen, P.-Y. (2018). Nurses\u2019 Experience With Health Information Technology: Longitudinal Qualitative Study. JMIR Medical Informatics<\/em>, 6<\/em>(2), e38. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2196\/medinform.8734<\/a><\/p>\nA Sample Answer 3 For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nTitle: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nInformation Needs Within an Organization<\/h3>\n
There are varying needs from the stakeholders within the health care system that employ and access health information technology (HIT).\u00a0 First, with the help of IT staff, clinicians such as nurses, physicians, etc., are using technology to improve documentation, enter orders, review medication interactions, and share scanned documents amongst various providers (U.S Dept. of VA, 2011).\u00a0\u00a0 Next, the patients are key stakeholders and use HIT to view personal health information through secure patient portals which house lab results, radiology results, and more (U.S Dept. of VA, 2011). \u00a0Third, hospital leadership use HIT to track outcomes, report data, and improve the quality of patient care (U.S. Dept. of V.A, 2011).\u00a0 Leadership can drive change and track data for quality indicators such as CLABSI, patient falls, documentation of blood product usage, usage of barcoded medication administration, breast milk storage, and physician electronic order entry (Stamps, et al., 2019).\u00a0 Leadership use this data from individual organizations to compare to national standards and improve patient care.\u00a0 Some of these metrics also play a role in hospital funding from CMS (Stamps, et al., 2019).<\/p>\n
Impact of Different Needs in Implementation of HIT<\/h2>\n
The needs of clinicians, patients and hospital leadership impact the implementation of HIT within an organization.\u00a0 Clinicians needs to stay informed of current best practices and have opportunities to share those with the health information team.\u00a0 This partnership allows for the creation of appropriate documentation tools and common terminology built into the EMR.\u00a0 For patients, the implementation of a patient portal impacts the health information team to make sure access is user friendly and securely protected.\u00a0 Leadership impacts the implementation of HIT within an organization by ensuring resources are invested in health information teams.\u00a0 Leaders that understand how informatics can improve patient care, quality, and organizational outcomes will make strong investments in health informatics by providing resources and structure within that department.<\/p>\n
The Flow of HIT and EBP<\/h2>\n
The flow of information through HIT supports the use of evidence-based practice at the hospital.\u00a0 The implementation of documentation tools that specifically capture assessments based on best practice is one way the EMR supports clinicians to follow EBP protocols and improves decision making (Ball, et al., 2011).\u00a0 For example, the hospital now has a chemotherapy tool for oncology patients who are actively receiving treatment that prompts the nurses to assess for common adverse event criteria.\u00a0 This information is entered into the system and then provides alerts to the bedside nurse based on EBP recommendations for mitigating these toxic side effects.\u00a0 Nurses can used this to provide comfort to patients and better communicate with physicians on appropriate medication management and orders.<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
Ball, M.J., et al., (2011). Nursing informatics: Where technology and caring meet <\/em>(4th<\/sup> ed.).<\/p>\nLondon, England: Springer-Verlag.<\/p>\n
Stamps, et al., (2019). Chief nursing officer council leads journal to achieve HIMSS Stage 7<\/p>\n
designation at 4 acute care hospitals: A case study.\u00a0 Nurse Leader 17, 3 Pgs 235-247.<\/p>\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.mnl.2018.10.003<\/a><\/p>\nUnited States Department of Veteran Affairs. (Producer). (2011). Innovation in VA, The Story of <\/em><\/p>\nVistA<\/em> [Video]. Washington, DC: Author.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Rubric Detail <\/strong><\/h2>\nSelect Grid View<\/em> or List View<\/em> to change the rubric’s layout.<\/p>\nContent<\/strong><\/h3>\nName:\u00a0NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion_Rubric<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n- Grid View<\/a><\/li>\n
- List View<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n\n\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nExcellent <\/strong><\/td>\nGood <\/strong><\/td>\nFair <\/strong><\/td>\nPoor <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\nRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION<\/strong><\/p>\nDiscussion post minimum requirements:<\/p>\n
*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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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\u2019 postings; and\/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nCONTENT KNOWLEDGE <\/strong><\/td>\nPoints Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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 \u00b7 demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and\/or errors; \u2013lack 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<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION <\/strong><\/td>\nPoints Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nQUALITY OF WRITING <\/strong><\/td>\nPoints Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; \u00b7 Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA \u00b7 Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; \u00b7 Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format \u00b7 Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 Directly quote from original source materials and\/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and\/or \u00b7 Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear \u00b7 Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format \u00b7 Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nTotal Points: 30 <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nName:\u00a0NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion_Rubric<\/strong><\/h3>\n <\/p>\n
Bottom of Form<\/p>\n
Submission and Grading Information<\/strong><\/h2>\nGrading Criteria <\/strong><\/h3>\nTo access your rubric:<\/p>\n
Week 2 Discussion Rubric<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6<\/strong><\/h2>\nTo participate in this Discussion:<\/p>\n
Week 2 Discussion<\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n
Discussion – Week 2 <\/strong>Top of Form Information Architecture<\/strong><\/h2>\nHow do you use health information technology in your daily work activities? Does the CNO in your organization use the same HIT as the nurses at the bedside? What about those individuals who work in admissions? In order to develop an information system that can facilitate the ability to track, share, and analyze patient data, an organization has to take into account the differing needs or views of various departments.<\/p>\n
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/h3>\nIn this Discussion, you consider the differing viewpoints of the professionals within your organization. Imagine what your colleagues\u2019 needs might be and how they might use a HIT system to access and share information to promote evidence-based care. What are the similarities and differences in how this technology would be used by physicians, lab techs, administrators, nurses, informaticians, and others?<\/p>\n
To prepare:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n- Review this week\u2019s media presentation, focusing on how the VA\u2019s VistA system demonstrates data flow across an organization.<\/li>\n
- <\/li>\n
- Reflect on your organization\u2019s information architecture and the various information needs of different groups within your work setting. What constraints has your organization faced with implementing health information technology systems that meet everyone\u2019s needs? Consider speaking with your colleagues from different areas about this topic.<\/li>\n
- <\/li>\n
- Ask yourself: How does the flow of data across my organization support, or inhibit, evidence-based practice?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
By Day 3 post<\/strong> a cohesive response that addresses the following:<\/h2>\n\n- Differentiate the information needs within your organization. For example, how might the needs of an administrator differ from the needs of a physician or lab tech?<\/li>\n
- Explain the impact of these different needs on the implementation of HIT in your present organization.<\/li>\n
- Evaluate how the flow of information across HIT systems within your organization supports or inhibits evidence-based practice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Read<\/strong> a selection of your colleagues\u2019 postings.<\/p>\nBy Day 6 respond<\/strong> to at least two<\/strong> of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:<\/h2>\n\n- Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.<\/li>\n
- Share an insight from having read your colleagues\u2019 postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.<\/li>\n
- Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.<\/li>\n
- Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.<\/li>\n
- Make a suggestion based on additional evidence<\/a> drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.<\/li>\n
- Expand on your colleagues\u2019 postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Return<\/strong> to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and\/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.<\/p>\nBe sure to support your work with specific citations from this week\u2019s Learning Resources and any additional sources.<\/em><\/p>\nClick on the Reply<\/strong> button below to post your response.<\/p>\nA Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nTitle: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nEach area of practice lends itself to some common information requirements which can be utilized amongst health care professionals, but there are also areas such as administration that has differing information needs. While watching the VA video, the discussion around the Vista CPRS fully integrated system looked very extensive. They incorporated concepts that were derived from Blum\u2019s and later Graves and Corcoran, which include data (objective), information (subjectively reviewed), and knowledge (formally completed content) (ANA, 2014). Although the Vista CPRS has a bountiful amount of content to support best practice, there are other areas of health needs that are specific and therefore require a unique set of system requirements. In the video, we see that a system was implemented that focused on the needs of the veterans to allow them prescription refills and other personal health needs (United Stats department of Veterans Affairs, 2011).\u00a0 In our area we have three major hospitals networks.\u00a0 The difficulty is that each of these networks have chosen different interfaces as their HIT systems.\u00a0 So a patient can go to two different hospitals in the same day and there is no communication or dialogue around the patients needs.\u00a0 This can become a dangerous situation if this patient was prescribed narcotics from two different health care prescriber and was planning on taking these together.\u00a0 In the hospital network I worked in, we used meditech as our HIT.\u00a0 This HIT system supports some evidence based practice and is great from a lab testing and sharing of patients personal data such as medical history, specific medical orders currently active and previous tests and diagnostics.\u00a0 Where we see it lacking is in the knowledge section.\u00a0 We are using another format of HIT for continuing education, looking up medication knowledge and skills. We would like to click on a patients prescribed medication and then that drug be linked to knowledge that would be applicable to the understanding and administration of it.\u00a0 We now must leave meditech and go into another application for this knowledge. Overall the needs of HIT continue to grow as our knowledge is being transmitted faster than ever before, and our patients\u2019 health complexities also increase with an ageing population. Preparing for current and future trends such as seeing more integration between electronic health records, improved research, artificial intelligence (AI) and the use of robotics will be facilitated by partnerships and education amongst private and public institutions to develop an advancing approach to HIT (Sheikh et al., 2021).<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
ANA. (2014).\u00a0Nursing Informatics\u00a0(2nd Edition). American Nurses<\/p>\n
Association.\u00a0https:\/\/mbsdirect.vitalsource.com\/books\/9781558105812<\/a><\/p>\nSheikh, A., Anderson, M., Albala, S., Casadei, B., Franklin, B. D., Richards, M., Taylor, D.,<\/p>\n
Tibble, H., & Mossialos, E. (2021). Health information technology and digital innovation for national learning health and care systems.\u00a0The Lancet. Digital Health,\u00a03(6), e383\u2013e396. https:\/\/doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org\/10.1016\/S2589-7500(21)00005-4<\/a><\/p>\nUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs. (Producer). (2011). Innovation in VA, the Story<\/p>\n
of VistA [Video]. Washington, DC: Author.<\/p>\n
A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nTitle: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nI do agree with you that an integrated Health Information Technology is the solution to multidisciplinary teams\u2019 collaboration hence reduced chances of medical errors and misinformation among the stakeholders (Alatawi et al., n.d.). HIT allow synchronization of all the health records of a patient creating a wider scope of reference by the medical practitioners when attending to the patients. A qualitative longitudinal approach for HIT adaptation studies has made it easier over time to understand thematic relationships. While thematic connectedness differed at different times because nurses were worried and satisfied, certain trends have been noted. Nurses appeared to be the most unhappy (Knighton et al., 2019). However, several sources of unrest, such as new equipment, sophisticated policies, and enhanced patient safety systems, can be addressed. About 18 months after the HIT execution, the perceptions of nurses seemed more balanced as shown by more consistent thematic frequencies and weaker Gephi coincident. The visual indicator of HIT Adaptation Progress can be a balanced thematic distribution and interconnection within Gephi chart. In order to confirm whether researchers can replicate these findings in other samples, future research is necessary (Zadvinskis et al., 2018).<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
Alatawi, M., Aljuhani, E., Alsuiany, F., & Aljanabi, S. (n.d.). Issue 4 \u2022 1000496 J Nurs Care, an open access journal<\/em>. 8<\/em>. https:\/\/www.hilarispublisher.com\/open-access\/barriers-of-implementing-evidencebased-practice-in-nursing-profession-a-literature-review.pdf<\/a><\/p>\nKnighton, A. J., McLaughlin, M., Blackburn, R., Wolfe, D., Andrews, S., Hellewell, J. L., Moore, R., Edwards, D. P., Allen, T. L., & Srivastava, R. (2019). Increasing Adherence to Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Quality Management in Health Care<\/em>, 28<\/em>(1), 65\u201367. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/qmh.0000000000000195<\/a><\/p>\nZadvinskis, I. M., Garvey Smith, J., & Yen, P.-Y. (2018). Nurses\u2019 Experience With Health Information Technology: Longitudinal Qualitative Study. JMIR Medical Informatics<\/em>, 6<\/em>(2), e38. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2196\/medinform.8734<\/a><\/p>\nA Sample Answer 3 For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nTitle: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nInformation Needs Within an Organization<\/h3>\n
There are varying needs from the stakeholders within the health care system that employ and access health information technology (HIT).\u00a0 First, with the help of IT staff, clinicians such as nurses, physicians, etc., are using technology to improve documentation, enter orders, review medication interactions, and share scanned documents amongst various providers (U.S Dept. of VA, 2011).\u00a0\u00a0 Next, the patients are key stakeholders and use HIT to view personal health information through secure patient portals which house lab results, radiology results, and more (U.S Dept. of VA, 2011). \u00a0Third, hospital leadership use HIT to track outcomes, report data, and improve the quality of patient care (U.S. Dept. of V.A, 2011).\u00a0 Leadership can drive change and track data for quality indicators such as CLABSI, patient falls, documentation of blood product usage, usage of barcoded medication administration, breast milk storage, and physician electronic order entry (Stamps, et al., 2019).\u00a0 Leadership use this data from individual organizations to compare to national standards and improve patient care.\u00a0 Some of these metrics also play a role in hospital funding from CMS (Stamps, et al., 2019).<\/p>\n
Impact of Different Needs in Implementation of HIT<\/h2>\n
The needs of clinicians, patients and hospital leadership impact the implementation of HIT within an organization.\u00a0 Clinicians needs to stay informed of current best practices and have opportunities to share those with the health information team.\u00a0 This partnership allows for the creation of appropriate documentation tools and common terminology built into the EMR.\u00a0 For patients, the implementation of a patient portal impacts the health information team to make sure access is user friendly and securely protected.\u00a0 Leadership impacts the implementation of HIT within an organization by ensuring resources are invested in health information teams.\u00a0 Leaders that understand how informatics can improve patient care, quality, and organizational outcomes will make strong investments in health informatics by providing resources and structure within that department.<\/p>\n
The Flow of HIT and EBP<\/h2>\n
The flow of information through HIT supports the use of evidence-based practice at the hospital.\u00a0 The implementation of documentation tools that specifically capture assessments based on best practice is one way the EMR supports clinicians to follow EBP protocols and improves decision making (Ball, et al., 2011).\u00a0 For example, the hospital now has a chemotherapy tool for oncology patients who are actively receiving treatment that prompts the nurses to assess for common adverse event criteria.\u00a0 This information is entered into the system and then provides alerts to the bedside nurse based on EBP recommendations for mitigating these toxic side effects.\u00a0 Nurses can used this to provide comfort to patients and better communicate with physicians on appropriate medication management and orders.<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
Ball, M.J., et al., (2011). Nursing informatics: Where technology and caring meet <\/em>(4th<\/sup> ed.).<\/p>\nLondon, England: Springer-Verlag.<\/p>\n
Stamps, et al., (2019). Chief nursing officer council leads journal to achieve HIMSS Stage 7<\/p>\n
designation at 4 acute care hospitals: A case study.\u00a0 Nurse Leader 17, 3 Pgs 235-247.<\/p>\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.mnl.2018.10.003<\/a><\/p>\nUnited States Department of Veteran Affairs. (Producer). (2011). Innovation in VA, The Story of <\/em><\/p>\nVistA<\/em> [Video]. Washington, DC: Author.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Rubric Detail <\/strong><\/h2>\nSelect Grid View<\/em> or List View<\/em> to change the rubric’s layout.<\/p>\nContent<\/strong><\/h3>\nName:\u00a0NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion_Rubric<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n- Grid View<\/a><\/li>\n
- List View<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n\n\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nExcellent <\/strong><\/td>\nGood <\/strong><\/td>\nFair <\/strong><\/td>\nPoor <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\nRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION<\/strong><\/p>\nDiscussion post minimum requirements:<\/p>\n
*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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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\u2019 postings; and\/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nCONTENT KNOWLEDGE <\/strong><\/td>\nPoints Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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 \u00b7 demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and\/or errors; \u2013lack 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<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION <\/strong><\/td>\nPoints Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nQUALITY OF WRITING <\/strong><\/td>\nPoints Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; \u00b7 Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA \u00b7 Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; \u00b7 Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format \u00b7 Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 Directly quote from original source materials and\/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and\/or \u00b7 Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear \u00b7 Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format \u00b7 Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nTotal Points: 30 <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nName:\u00a0NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion_Rubric<\/strong><\/h3>\n <\/p>\n
Bottom of Form<\/p>\n
To access your rubric:<\/p>\n
Week 2 Discussion Rubric<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6<\/strong><\/h2>\nTo participate in this Discussion:<\/p>\n
Week 2 Discussion<\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n
Discussion – Week 2 <\/strong>Top of Form Information Architecture<\/strong><\/h2>\nHow do you use health information technology in your daily work activities? Does the CNO in your organization use the same HIT as the nurses at the bedside? What about those individuals who work in admissions? In order to develop an information system that can facilitate the ability to track, share, and analyze patient data, an organization has to take into account the differing needs or views of various departments.<\/p>\n
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/h3>\nIn this Discussion, you consider the differing viewpoints of the professionals within your organization. Imagine what your colleagues\u2019 needs might be and how they might use a HIT system to access and share information to promote evidence-based care. What are the similarities and differences in how this technology would be used by physicians, lab techs, administrators, nurses, informaticians, and others?<\/p>\n
To prepare:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n- Review this week\u2019s media presentation, focusing on how the VA\u2019s VistA system demonstrates data flow across an organization.<\/li>\n
- <\/li>\n
- Reflect on your organization\u2019s information architecture and the various information needs of different groups within your work setting. What constraints has your organization faced with implementing health information technology systems that meet everyone\u2019s needs? Consider speaking with your colleagues from different areas about this topic.<\/li>\n
- <\/li>\n
- Ask yourself: How does the flow of data across my organization support, or inhibit, evidence-based practice?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
By Day 3 post<\/strong> a cohesive response that addresses the following:<\/h2>\n\n- Differentiate the information needs within your organization. For example, how might the needs of an administrator differ from the needs of a physician or lab tech?<\/li>\n
- Explain the impact of these different needs on the implementation of HIT in your present organization.<\/li>\n
- Evaluate how the flow of information across HIT systems within your organization supports or inhibits evidence-based practice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Read<\/strong> a selection of your colleagues\u2019 postings.<\/p>\nBy Day 6 respond<\/strong> to at least two<\/strong> of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:<\/h2>\n\n- Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.<\/li>\n
- Share an insight from having read your colleagues\u2019 postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.<\/li>\n
- Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.<\/li>\n
- Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.<\/li>\n
- Make a suggestion based on additional evidence<\/a> drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.<\/li>\n
- Expand on your colleagues\u2019 postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Return<\/strong> to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and\/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.<\/p>\nBe sure to support your work with specific citations from this week\u2019s Learning Resources and any additional sources.<\/em><\/p>\nClick on the Reply<\/strong> button below to post your response.<\/p>\nA Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nTitle: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nEach area of practice lends itself to some common information requirements which can be utilized amongst health care professionals, but there are also areas such as administration that has differing information needs. While watching the VA video, the discussion around the Vista CPRS fully integrated system looked very extensive. They incorporated concepts that were derived from Blum\u2019s and later Graves and Corcoran, which include data (objective), information (subjectively reviewed), and knowledge (formally completed content) (ANA, 2014). Although the Vista CPRS has a bountiful amount of content to support best practice, there are other areas of health needs that are specific and therefore require a unique set of system requirements. In the video, we see that a system was implemented that focused on the needs of the veterans to allow them prescription refills and other personal health needs (United Stats department of Veterans Affairs, 2011).\u00a0 In our area we have three major hospitals networks.\u00a0 The difficulty is that each of these networks have chosen different interfaces as their HIT systems.\u00a0 So a patient can go to two different hospitals in the same day and there is no communication or dialogue around the patients needs.\u00a0 This can become a dangerous situation if this patient was prescribed narcotics from two different health care prescriber and was planning on taking these together.\u00a0 In the hospital network I worked in, we used meditech as our HIT.\u00a0 This HIT system supports some evidence based practice and is great from a lab testing and sharing of patients personal data such as medical history, specific medical orders currently active and previous tests and diagnostics.\u00a0 Where we see it lacking is in the knowledge section.\u00a0 We are using another format of HIT for continuing education, looking up medication knowledge and skills. We would like to click on a patients prescribed medication and then that drug be linked to knowledge that would be applicable to the understanding and administration of it.\u00a0 We now must leave meditech and go into another application for this knowledge. Overall the needs of HIT continue to grow as our knowledge is being transmitted faster than ever before, and our patients\u2019 health complexities also increase with an ageing population. Preparing for current and future trends such as seeing more integration between electronic health records, improved research, artificial intelligence (AI) and the use of robotics will be facilitated by partnerships and education amongst private and public institutions to develop an advancing approach to HIT (Sheikh et al., 2021).<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
ANA. (2014).\u00a0Nursing Informatics\u00a0(2nd Edition). American Nurses<\/p>\n
Association.\u00a0https:\/\/mbsdirect.vitalsource.com\/books\/9781558105812<\/a><\/p>\nSheikh, A., Anderson, M., Albala, S., Casadei, B., Franklin, B. D., Richards, M., Taylor, D.,<\/p>\n
Tibble, H., & Mossialos, E. (2021). Health information technology and digital innovation for national learning health and care systems.\u00a0The Lancet. Digital Health,\u00a03(6), e383\u2013e396. https:\/\/doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org\/10.1016\/S2589-7500(21)00005-4<\/a><\/p>\nUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs. (Producer). (2011). Innovation in VA, the Story<\/p>\n
of VistA [Video]. Washington, DC: Author.<\/p>\n
A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nTitle: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nI do agree with you that an integrated Health Information Technology is the solution to multidisciplinary teams\u2019 collaboration hence reduced chances of medical errors and misinformation among the stakeholders (Alatawi et al., n.d.). HIT allow synchronization of all the health records of a patient creating a wider scope of reference by the medical practitioners when attending to the patients. A qualitative longitudinal approach for HIT adaptation studies has made it easier over time to understand thematic relationships. While thematic connectedness differed at different times because nurses were worried and satisfied, certain trends have been noted. Nurses appeared to be the most unhappy (Knighton et al., 2019). However, several sources of unrest, such as new equipment, sophisticated policies, and enhanced patient safety systems, can be addressed. About 18 months after the HIT execution, the perceptions of nurses seemed more balanced as shown by more consistent thematic frequencies and weaker Gephi coincident. The visual indicator of HIT Adaptation Progress can be a balanced thematic distribution and interconnection within Gephi chart. In order to confirm whether researchers can replicate these findings in other samples, future research is necessary (Zadvinskis et al., 2018).<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
Alatawi, M., Aljuhani, E., Alsuiany, F., & Aljanabi, S. (n.d.). Issue 4 \u2022 1000496 J Nurs Care, an open access journal<\/em>. 8<\/em>. https:\/\/www.hilarispublisher.com\/open-access\/barriers-of-implementing-evidencebased-practice-in-nursing-profession-a-literature-review.pdf<\/a><\/p>\nKnighton, A. J., McLaughlin, M., Blackburn, R., Wolfe, D., Andrews, S., Hellewell, J. L., Moore, R., Edwards, D. P., Allen, T. L., & Srivastava, R. (2019). Increasing Adherence to Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Quality Management in Health Care<\/em>, 28<\/em>(1), 65\u201367. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/qmh.0000000000000195<\/a><\/p>\nZadvinskis, I. M., Garvey Smith, J., & Yen, P.-Y. (2018). Nurses\u2019 Experience With Health Information Technology: Longitudinal Qualitative Study. JMIR Medical Informatics<\/em>, 6<\/em>(2), e38. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2196\/medinform.8734<\/a><\/p>\nA Sample Answer 3 For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nTitle: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nInformation Needs Within an Organization<\/h3>\n
There are varying needs from the stakeholders within the health care system that employ and access health information technology (HIT).\u00a0 First, with the help of IT staff, clinicians such as nurses, physicians, etc., are using technology to improve documentation, enter orders, review medication interactions, and share scanned documents amongst various providers (U.S Dept. of VA, 2011).\u00a0\u00a0 Next, the patients are key stakeholders and use HIT to view personal health information through secure patient portals which house lab results, radiology results, and more (U.S Dept. of VA, 2011). \u00a0Third, hospital leadership use HIT to track outcomes, report data, and improve the quality of patient care (U.S. Dept. of V.A, 2011).\u00a0 Leadership can drive change and track data for quality indicators such as CLABSI, patient falls, documentation of blood product usage, usage of barcoded medication administration, breast milk storage, and physician electronic order entry (Stamps, et al., 2019).\u00a0 Leadership use this data from individual organizations to compare to national standards and improve patient care.\u00a0 Some of these metrics also play a role in hospital funding from CMS (Stamps, et al., 2019).<\/p>\n
Impact of Different Needs in Implementation of HIT<\/h2>\n
The needs of clinicians, patients and hospital leadership impact the implementation of HIT within an organization.\u00a0 Clinicians needs to stay informed of current best practices and have opportunities to share those with the health information team.\u00a0 This partnership allows for the creation of appropriate documentation tools and common terminology built into the EMR.\u00a0 For patients, the implementation of a patient portal impacts the health information team to make sure access is user friendly and securely protected.\u00a0 Leadership impacts the implementation of HIT within an organization by ensuring resources are invested in health information teams.\u00a0 Leaders that understand how informatics can improve patient care, quality, and organizational outcomes will make strong investments in health informatics by providing resources and structure within that department.<\/p>\n
The Flow of HIT and EBP<\/h2>\n
The flow of information through HIT supports the use of evidence-based practice at the hospital.\u00a0 The implementation of documentation tools that specifically capture assessments based on best practice is one way the EMR supports clinicians to follow EBP protocols and improves decision making (Ball, et al., 2011).\u00a0 For example, the hospital now has a chemotherapy tool for oncology patients who are actively receiving treatment that prompts the nurses to assess for common adverse event criteria.\u00a0 This information is entered into the system and then provides alerts to the bedside nurse based on EBP recommendations for mitigating these toxic side effects.\u00a0 Nurses can used this to provide comfort to patients and better communicate with physicians on appropriate medication management and orders.<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
Ball, M.J., et al., (2011). Nursing informatics: Where technology and caring meet <\/em>(4th<\/sup> ed.).<\/p>\nLondon, England: Springer-Verlag.<\/p>\n
Stamps, et al., (2019). Chief nursing officer council leads journal to achieve HIMSS Stage 7<\/p>\n
designation at 4 acute care hospitals: A case study.\u00a0 Nurse Leader 17, 3 Pgs 235-247.<\/p>\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.mnl.2018.10.003<\/a><\/p>\nUnited States Department of Veteran Affairs. (Producer). (2011). Innovation in VA, The Story of <\/em><\/p>\nVistA<\/em> [Video]. Washington, DC: Author.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Rubric Detail <\/strong><\/h2>\nSelect Grid View<\/em> or List View<\/em> to change the rubric’s layout.<\/p>\nContent<\/strong><\/h3>\nName:\u00a0NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion_Rubric<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n- Grid View<\/a><\/li>\n
- List View<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n\n\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nExcellent <\/strong><\/td>\nGood <\/strong><\/td>\nFair <\/strong><\/td>\nPoor <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\nRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION<\/strong><\/p>\nDiscussion post minimum requirements:<\/p>\n
*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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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\u2019 postings; and\/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nCONTENT KNOWLEDGE <\/strong><\/td>\nPoints Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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 \u00b7 demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and\/or errors; \u2013lack 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<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION <\/strong><\/td>\nPoints Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nQUALITY OF WRITING <\/strong><\/td>\nPoints Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; \u00b7 Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA \u00b7 Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; \u00b7 Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format \u00b7 Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 Directly quote from original source materials and\/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and\/or \u00b7 Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear \u00b7 Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format \u00b7 Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nTotal Points: 30 <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nName:\u00a0NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion_Rubric<\/strong><\/h3>\n <\/p>\n
Bottom of Form<\/p>\n
How do you use health information technology in your daily work activities? Does the CNO in your organization use the same HIT as the nurses at the bedside? What about those individuals who work in admissions? In order to develop an information system that can facilitate the ability to track, share, and analyze patient data, an organization has to take into account the differing needs or views of various departments.<\/p>\n
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/h3>\nIn this Discussion, you consider the differing viewpoints of the professionals within your organization. Imagine what your colleagues\u2019 needs might be and how they might use a HIT system to access and share information to promote evidence-based care. What are the similarities and differences in how this technology would be used by physicians, lab techs, administrators, nurses, informaticians, and others?<\/p>\n
To prepare:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n- Review this week\u2019s media presentation, focusing on how the VA\u2019s VistA system demonstrates data flow across an organization.<\/li>\n
- <\/li>\n
- Reflect on your organization\u2019s information architecture and the various information needs of different groups within your work setting. What constraints has your organization faced with implementing health information technology systems that meet everyone\u2019s needs? Consider speaking with your colleagues from different areas about this topic.<\/li>\n
- <\/li>\n
- Ask yourself: How does the flow of data across my organization support, or inhibit, evidence-based practice?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
By Day 3 post<\/strong> a cohesive response that addresses the following:<\/h2>\n\n- Differentiate the information needs within your organization. For example, how might the needs of an administrator differ from the needs of a physician or lab tech?<\/li>\n
- Explain the impact of these different needs on the implementation of HIT in your present organization.<\/li>\n
- Evaluate how the flow of information across HIT systems within your organization supports or inhibits evidence-based practice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Read<\/strong> a selection of your colleagues\u2019 postings.<\/p>\nBy Day 6 respond<\/strong> to at least two<\/strong> of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:<\/h2>\n\n- Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.<\/li>\n
- Share an insight from having read your colleagues\u2019 postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.<\/li>\n
- Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.<\/li>\n
- Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.<\/li>\n
- Make a suggestion based on additional evidence<\/a> drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.<\/li>\n
- Expand on your colleagues\u2019 postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Return<\/strong> to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and\/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.<\/p>\nBe sure to support your work with specific citations from this week\u2019s Learning Resources and any additional sources.<\/em><\/p>\nClick on the Reply<\/strong> button below to post your response.<\/p>\nA Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nTitle: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nEach area of practice lends itself to some common information requirements which can be utilized amongst health care professionals, but there are also areas such as administration that has differing information needs. While watching the VA video, the discussion around the Vista CPRS fully integrated system looked very extensive. They incorporated concepts that were derived from Blum\u2019s and later Graves and Corcoran, which include data (objective), information (subjectively reviewed), and knowledge (formally completed content) (ANA, 2014). Although the Vista CPRS has a bountiful amount of content to support best practice, there are other areas of health needs that are specific and therefore require a unique set of system requirements. In the video, we see that a system was implemented that focused on the needs of the veterans to allow them prescription refills and other personal health needs (United Stats department of Veterans Affairs, 2011).\u00a0 In our area we have three major hospitals networks.\u00a0 The difficulty is that each of these networks have chosen different interfaces as their HIT systems.\u00a0 So a patient can go to two different hospitals in the same day and there is no communication or dialogue around the patients needs.\u00a0 This can become a dangerous situation if this patient was prescribed narcotics from two different health care prescriber and was planning on taking these together.\u00a0 In the hospital network I worked in, we used meditech as our HIT.\u00a0 This HIT system supports some evidence based practice and is great from a lab testing and sharing of patients personal data such as medical history, specific medical orders currently active and previous tests and diagnostics.\u00a0 Where we see it lacking is in the knowledge section.\u00a0 We are using another format of HIT for continuing education, looking up medication knowledge and skills. We would like to click on a patients prescribed medication and then that drug be linked to knowledge that would be applicable to the understanding and administration of it.\u00a0 We now must leave meditech and go into another application for this knowledge. Overall the needs of HIT continue to grow as our knowledge is being transmitted faster than ever before, and our patients\u2019 health complexities also increase with an ageing population. Preparing for current and future trends such as seeing more integration between electronic health records, improved research, artificial intelligence (AI) and the use of robotics will be facilitated by partnerships and education amongst private and public institutions to develop an advancing approach to HIT (Sheikh et al., 2021).<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
ANA. (2014).\u00a0Nursing Informatics\u00a0(2nd Edition). American Nurses<\/p>\n
Association.\u00a0https:\/\/mbsdirect.vitalsource.com\/books\/9781558105812<\/a><\/p>\nSheikh, A., Anderson, M., Albala, S., Casadei, B., Franklin, B. D., Richards, M., Taylor, D.,<\/p>\n
Tibble, H., & Mossialos, E. (2021). Health information technology and digital innovation for national learning health and care systems.\u00a0The Lancet. Digital Health,\u00a03(6), e383\u2013e396. https:\/\/doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org\/10.1016\/S2589-7500(21)00005-4<\/a><\/p>\nUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs. (Producer). (2011). Innovation in VA, the Story<\/p>\n
of VistA [Video]. Washington, DC: Author.<\/p>\n
A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nTitle: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nI do agree with you that an integrated Health Information Technology is the solution to multidisciplinary teams\u2019 collaboration hence reduced chances of medical errors and misinformation among the stakeholders (Alatawi et al., n.d.). HIT allow synchronization of all the health records of a patient creating a wider scope of reference by the medical practitioners when attending to the patients. A qualitative longitudinal approach for HIT adaptation studies has made it easier over time to understand thematic relationships. While thematic connectedness differed at different times because nurses were worried and satisfied, certain trends have been noted. Nurses appeared to be the most unhappy (Knighton et al., 2019). However, several sources of unrest, such as new equipment, sophisticated policies, and enhanced patient safety systems, can be addressed. About 18 months after the HIT execution, the perceptions of nurses seemed more balanced as shown by more consistent thematic frequencies and weaker Gephi coincident. The visual indicator of HIT Adaptation Progress can be a balanced thematic distribution and interconnection within Gephi chart. In order to confirm whether researchers can replicate these findings in other samples, future research is necessary (Zadvinskis et al., 2018).<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
Alatawi, M., Aljuhani, E., Alsuiany, F., & Aljanabi, S. (n.d.). Issue 4 \u2022 1000496 J Nurs Care, an open access journal<\/em>. 8<\/em>. https:\/\/www.hilarispublisher.com\/open-access\/barriers-of-implementing-evidencebased-practice-in-nursing-profession-a-literature-review.pdf<\/a><\/p>\nKnighton, A. J., McLaughlin, M., Blackburn, R., Wolfe, D., Andrews, S., Hellewell, J. L., Moore, R., Edwards, D. P., Allen, T. L., & Srivastava, R. (2019). Increasing Adherence to Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Quality Management in Health Care<\/em>, 28<\/em>(1), 65\u201367. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/qmh.0000000000000195<\/a><\/p>\nZadvinskis, I. M., Garvey Smith, J., & Yen, P.-Y. (2018). Nurses\u2019 Experience With Health Information Technology: Longitudinal Qualitative Study. JMIR Medical Informatics<\/em>, 6<\/em>(2), e38. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2196\/medinform.8734<\/a><\/p>\nA Sample Answer 3 For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nTitle: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\nInformation Needs Within an Organization<\/h3>\n
There are varying needs from the stakeholders within the health care system that employ and access health information technology (HIT).\u00a0 First, with the help of IT staff, clinicians such as nurses, physicians, etc., are using technology to improve documentation, enter orders, review medication interactions, and share scanned documents amongst various providers (U.S Dept. of VA, 2011).\u00a0\u00a0 Next, the patients are key stakeholders and use HIT to view personal health information through secure patient portals which house lab results, radiology results, and more (U.S Dept. of VA, 2011). \u00a0Third, hospital leadership use HIT to track outcomes, report data, and improve the quality of patient care (U.S. Dept. of V.A, 2011).\u00a0 Leadership can drive change and track data for quality indicators such as CLABSI, patient falls, documentation of blood product usage, usage of barcoded medication administration, breast milk storage, and physician electronic order entry (Stamps, et al., 2019).\u00a0 Leadership use this data from individual organizations to compare to national standards and improve patient care.\u00a0 Some of these metrics also play a role in hospital funding from CMS (Stamps, et al., 2019).<\/p>\n
Impact of Different Needs in Implementation of HIT<\/h2>\n
The needs of clinicians, patients and hospital leadership impact the implementation of HIT within an organization.\u00a0 Clinicians needs to stay informed of current best practices and have opportunities to share those with the health information team.\u00a0 This partnership allows for the creation of appropriate documentation tools and common terminology built into the EMR.\u00a0 For patients, the implementation of a patient portal impacts the health information team to make sure access is user friendly and securely protected.\u00a0 Leadership impacts the implementation of HIT within an organization by ensuring resources are invested in health information teams.\u00a0 Leaders that understand how informatics can improve patient care, quality, and organizational outcomes will make strong investments in health informatics by providing resources and structure within that department.<\/p>\n
The Flow of HIT and EBP<\/h2>\n
The flow of information through HIT supports the use of evidence-based practice at the hospital.\u00a0 The implementation of documentation tools that specifically capture assessments based on best practice is one way the EMR supports clinicians to follow EBP protocols and improves decision making (Ball, et al., 2011).\u00a0 For example, the hospital now has a chemotherapy tool for oncology patients who are actively receiving treatment that prompts the nurses to assess for common adverse event criteria.\u00a0 This information is entered into the system and then provides alerts to the bedside nurse based on EBP recommendations for mitigating these toxic side effects.\u00a0 Nurses can used this to provide comfort to patients and better communicate with physicians on appropriate medication management and orders.<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
Ball, M.J., et al., (2011). Nursing informatics: Where technology and caring meet <\/em>(4th<\/sup> ed.).<\/p>\nLondon, England: Springer-Verlag.<\/p>\n
Stamps, et al., (2019). Chief nursing officer council leads journal to achieve HIMSS Stage 7<\/p>\n
designation at 4 acute care hospitals: A case study.\u00a0 Nurse Leader 17, 3 Pgs 235-247.<\/p>\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.mnl.2018.10.003<\/a><\/p>\nUnited States Department of Veteran Affairs. (Producer). (2011). Innovation in VA, The Story of <\/em><\/p>\nVistA<\/em> [Video]. Washington, DC: Author.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Rubric Detail <\/strong><\/h2>\nSelect Grid View<\/em> or List View<\/em> to change the rubric’s layout.<\/p>\nContent<\/strong><\/h3>\nName:\u00a0NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion_Rubric<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n- Grid View<\/a><\/li>\n
- List View<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n\n\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nExcellent <\/strong><\/td>\nGood <\/strong><\/td>\nFair <\/strong><\/td>\nPoor <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\nRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION<\/strong><\/p>\nDiscussion post minimum requirements:<\/p>\n
*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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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\u2019 postings; and\/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nCONTENT KNOWLEDGE <\/strong><\/td>\nPoints Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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 \u00b7 demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and\/or errors; \u2013lack 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<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION <\/strong><\/td>\nPoints Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion 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<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nQUALITY OF WRITING <\/strong><\/td>\nPoints Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; \u00b7 Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA \u00b7 Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; \u00b7 Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format \u00b7 Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 Directly quote from original source materials and\/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and\/or \u00b7 Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%)<\/p>\nDiscussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear \u00b7 Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format \u00b7 Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nTotal Points: 30 <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\nName:\u00a0NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion_Rubric<\/strong><\/h3>\n <\/p>\n
Bottom of Form<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n- \n
- Review this week\u2019s media presentation, focusing on how the VA\u2019s VistA system demonstrates data flow across an organization.<\/li>\n
- <\/li>\n
- Reflect on your organization\u2019s information architecture and the various information needs of different groups within your work setting. What constraints has your organization faced with implementing health information technology systems that meet everyone\u2019s needs? Consider speaking with your colleagues from different areas about this topic.<\/li>\n
- <\/li>\n
- Ask yourself: How does the flow of data across my organization support, or inhibit, evidence-based practice?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
By Day 3 post<\/strong> a cohesive response that addresses the following:<\/h2>\n
- \n
- Differentiate the information needs within your organization. For example, how might the needs of an administrator differ from the needs of a physician or lab tech?<\/li>\n
- Explain the impact of these different needs on the implementation of HIT in your present organization.<\/li>\n
- Evaluate how the flow of information across HIT systems within your organization supports or inhibits evidence-based practice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Read<\/strong> a selection of your colleagues\u2019 postings.<\/p>\n
By Day 6 respond<\/strong> to at least two<\/strong> of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:<\/h2>\n
- \n
- Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.<\/li>\n
- Share an insight from having read your colleagues\u2019 postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.<\/li>\n
- Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.<\/li>\n
- Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.<\/li>\n
- Make a suggestion based on additional evidence<\/a> drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.<\/li>\n
- Expand on your colleagues\u2019 postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Return<\/strong> to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and\/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.<\/p>\n
Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week\u2019s Learning Resources and any additional sources.<\/em><\/p>\n
Click on the Reply<\/strong> button below to post your response.<\/p>\n
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Title: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Each area of practice lends itself to some common information requirements which can be utilized amongst health care professionals, but there are also areas such as administration that has differing information needs. While watching the VA video, the discussion around the Vista CPRS fully integrated system looked very extensive. They incorporated concepts that were derived from Blum\u2019s and later Graves and Corcoran, which include data (objective), information (subjectively reviewed), and knowledge (formally completed content) (ANA, 2014). Although the Vista CPRS has a bountiful amount of content to support best practice, there are other areas of health needs that are specific and therefore require a unique set of system requirements. In the video, we see that a system was implemented that focused on the needs of the veterans to allow them prescription refills and other personal health needs (United Stats department of Veterans Affairs, 2011).\u00a0 In our area we have three major hospitals networks.\u00a0 The difficulty is that each of these networks have chosen different interfaces as their HIT systems.\u00a0 So a patient can go to two different hospitals in the same day and there is no communication or dialogue around the patients needs.\u00a0 This can become a dangerous situation if this patient was prescribed narcotics from two different health care prescriber and was planning on taking these together.\u00a0 In the hospital network I worked in, we used meditech as our HIT.\u00a0 This HIT system supports some evidence based practice and is great from a lab testing and sharing of patients personal data such as medical history, specific medical orders currently active and previous tests and diagnostics.\u00a0 Where we see it lacking is in the knowledge section.\u00a0 We are using another format of HIT for continuing education, looking up medication knowledge and skills. We would like to click on a patients prescribed medication and then that drug be linked to knowledge that would be applicable to the understanding and administration of it.\u00a0 We now must leave meditech and go into another application for this knowledge. Overall the needs of HIT continue to grow as our knowledge is being transmitted faster than ever before, and our patients\u2019 health complexities also increase with an ageing population. Preparing for current and future trends such as seeing more integration between electronic health records, improved research, artificial intelligence (AI) and the use of robotics will be facilitated by partnerships and education amongst private and public institutions to develop an advancing approach to HIT (Sheikh et al., 2021).<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
ANA. (2014).\u00a0Nursing Informatics\u00a0(2nd Edition). American Nurses<\/p>\n
Association.\u00a0https:\/\/mbsdirect.vitalsource.com\/books\/9781558105812<\/a><\/p>\n
Sheikh, A., Anderson, M., Albala, S., Casadei, B., Franklin, B. D., Richards, M., Taylor, D.,<\/p>\n
Tibble, H., & Mossialos, E. (2021). Health information technology and digital innovation for national learning health and care systems.\u00a0The Lancet. Digital Health,\u00a03(6), e383\u2013e396. https:\/\/doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org\/10.1016\/S2589-7500(21)00005-4<\/a><\/p>\n
United States Department of Veterans Affairs. (Producer). (2011). Innovation in VA, the Story<\/p>\n
of VistA [Video]. Washington, DC: Author.<\/p>\n
A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Title: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\n
I do agree with you that an integrated Health Information Technology is the solution to multidisciplinary teams\u2019 collaboration hence reduced chances of medical errors and misinformation among the stakeholders (Alatawi et al., n.d.). HIT allow synchronization of all the health records of a patient creating a wider scope of reference by the medical practitioners when attending to the patients. A qualitative longitudinal approach for HIT adaptation studies has made it easier over time to understand thematic relationships. While thematic connectedness differed at different times because nurses were worried and satisfied, certain trends have been noted. Nurses appeared to be the most unhappy (Knighton et al., 2019). However, several sources of unrest, such as new equipment, sophisticated policies, and enhanced patient safety systems, can be addressed. About 18 months after the HIT execution, the perceptions of nurses seemed more balanced as shown by more consistent thematic frequencies and weaker Gephi coincident. The visual indicator of HIT Adaptation Progress can be a balanced thematic distribution and interconnection within Gephi chart. In order to confirm whether researchers can replicate these findings in other samples, future research is necessary (Zadvinskis et al., 2018).<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
Alatawi, M., Aljuhani, E., Alsuiany, F., & Aljanabi, S. (n.d.). Issue 4 \u2022 1000496 J Nurs Care, an open access journal<\/em>. 8<\/em>. https:\/\/www.hilarispublisher.com\/open-access\/barriers-of-implementing-evidencebased-practice-in-nursing-profession-a-literature-review.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n
Knighton, A. J., McLaughlin, M., Blackburn, R., Wolfe, D., Andrews, S., Hellewell, J. L., Moore, R., Edwards, D. P., Allen, T. L., & Srivastava, R. (2019). Increasing Adherence to Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Quality Management in Health Care<\/em>, 28<\/em>(1), 65\u201367. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/qmh.0000000000000195<\/a><\/p>\n
Zadvinskis, I. M., Garvey Smith, J., & Yen, P.-Y. (2018). Nurses\u2019 Experience With Health Information Technology: Longitudinal Qualitative Study. JMIR Medical Informatics<\/em>, 6<\/em>(2), e38. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2196\/medinform.8734<\/a><\/p>\n
A Sample Answer 3 For the Assignment: NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Title: <\/strong> NURS 8210 WEEK 2 Discussion Information Architecture Instructions PLUS RUBRIC<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Information Needs Within an Organization<\/h3>\n
There are varying needs from the stakeholders within the health care system that employ and access health information technology (HIT).\u00a0 First, with the help of IT staff, clinicians such as nurses, physicians, etc., are using technology to improve documentation, enter orders, review medication interactions, and share scanned documents amongst various providers (U.S Dept. of VA, 2011).\u00a0\u00a0 Next, the patients are key stakeholders and use HIT to view personal health information through secure patient portals which house lab results, radiology results, and more (U.S Dept. of VA, 2011). \u00a0Third, hospital leadership use HIT to track outcomes, report data, and improve the quality of patient care (U.S. Dept. of V.A, 2011).\u00a0 Leadership can drive change and track data for quality indicators such as CLABSI, patient falls, documentation of blood product usage, usage of barcoded medication administration, breast milk storage, and physician electronic order entry (Stamps, et al., 2019).\u00a0 Leadership use this data from individual organizations to compare to national standards and improve patient care.\u00a0 Some of these metrics also play a role in hospital funding from CMS (Stamps, et al., 2019).<\/p>\n
Impact of Different Needs in Implementation of HIT<\/h2>\n
The needs of clinicians, patients and hospital leadership impact the implementation of HIT within an organization.\u00a0 Clinicians needs to stay informed of current best practices and have opportunities to share those with the health information team.\u00a0 This partnership allows for the creation of appropriate documentation tools and common terminology built into the EMR.\u00a0 For patients, the implementation of a patient portal impacts the health information team to make sure access is user friendly and securely protected.\u00a0 Leadership impacts the implementation of HIT within an organization by ensuring resources are invested in health information teams.\u00a0 Leaders that understand how informatics can improve patient care, quality, and organizational outcomes will make strong investments in health informatics by providing resources and structure within that department.<\/p>\n
The Flow of HIT and EBP<\/h2>\n
The flow of information through HIT supports the use of evidence-based practice at the hospital.\u00a0 The implementation of documentation tools that specifically capture assessments based on best practice is one way the EMR supports clinicians to follow EBP protocols and improves decision making (Ball, et al., 2011).\u00a0 For example, the hospital now has a chemotherapy tool for oncology patients who are actively receiving treatment that prompts the nurses to assess for common adverse event criteria.\u00a0 This information is entered into the system and then provides alerts to the bedside nurse based on EBP recommendations for mitigating these toxic side effects.\u00a0 Nurses can used this to provide comfort to patients and better communicate with physicians on appropriate medication management and orders.<\/p>\n
References<\/h2>\n
Ball, M.J., et al., (2011). Nursing informatics: Where technology and caring meet <\/em>(4th<\/sup> ed.).<\/p>\n
London, England: Springer-Verlag.<\/p>\n
Stamps, et al., (2019). Chief nursing officer council leads journal to achieve HIMSS Stage 7<\/p>\n
designation at 4 acute care hospitals: A case study.\u00a0 Nurse Leader 17, 3 Pgs 235-247.<\/p>\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.mnl.2018.10.003<\/a><\/p>\n
United States Department of Veteran Affairs. (Producer). (2011). Innovation in VA, The Story of <\/em><\/p>\n
VistA<\/em> [Video]. Washington, DC: Author.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Rubric Detail <\/strong><\/h2>\n
Select Grid View<\/em> or List View<\/em> to change the rubric’s layout.<\/p>\n
Content<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Name:\u00a0NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion_Rubric<\/strong><\/h3>\n
- \n
- Grid View<\/a><\/li>\n
- List View<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n\n
\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Excellent <\/strong><\/td>\n Good <\/strong><\/td>\n Fair <\/strong><\/td>\n Poor <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION<\/strong><\/p>\n Discussion post minimum requirements:<\/p>\n
*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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\n 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\n 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\n 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*.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\n 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\u2019 postings; and\/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n CONTENT KNOWLEDGE <\/strong><\/td>\n Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\n 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\n 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 \u00b7 demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\n 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; \u2013lack 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<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\n 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.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION <\/strong><\/td>\n Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)<\/p>\n 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)<\/p>\n 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<\/td>\n
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\n 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.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\n 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<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n QUALITY OF WRITING <\/strong><\/td>\n Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)<\/p>\n Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; \u00b7 Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA \u00b7 Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)<\/p>\n Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; \u00b7 Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format \u00b7 Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)<\/p>\n Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; \u00b7 Directly quote from original source materials and\/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and\/or \u00b7 Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%)<\/p>\n Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: \u00b7 Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear \u00b7 Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format \u00b7 Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Total Points: 30 <\/strong><\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Name:\u00a0NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion_Rubric<\/strong><\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n
Bottom of Form<\/p>\n
- List View<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Expand on your colleagues\u2019 postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
![\"NURS](\"https:\/\/nursingassignmentcrackers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/NURS-8210-WEEK-2-Discussion-Information-Architecture-Instructions-PLUS-RUBRIC-300x137.png\")