NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support and Innovative Informatics Tools
Walden University NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools-Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.
How to Research and Prepare for NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.
After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.
How to Write the Introduction for NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools
The introduction for the Walden University NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.
How to Write the Body for NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools
After the introduction, move into the main part of the NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.
Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.
How to Write the Conclusion for NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools
After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.
How to Format the References List for NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools
The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.
Stuck? Let Us Help You
Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.
Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.
Post your responses to the Discussion based on the course requirements.
Your Discussion postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA guidelines as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and additional scholarly sources as appropriate. Initial postings must be 250–350 words (not including references).
Submission and Grading Information
Decision Support and Innovative Informatics Tools
“Never before in history has innovation offered promise of so much to so many in so short a time.” – Bill Gates (as cited in Frazer, 2007)
Technological innovations are dramatically changing how the health care industry operates. One example of this change is the
transformation of gaming systems and virtual worlds into effective health care devices. Today’s gaming systems are capable of strengthening motor skills during rehabilitation, while virtual worlds promote a form of nonjudgmental communication and self-confidence for those patients who suffer from physical and mental limitations. Innovations such as these have been well received as they promote health in a positive and entertaining way.
In this week’s Discussion, you appraise how these innovations can enhance health care practices. Focus on analyzing innovations with which you may be unfamiliar. For example, you may choose to look at the fields of decision support, robotics, telehealth, and nanotechnologies.
References:
Olsen, S. (2008, May 29). Wii-habilitation, health games get $2 million study grant. CNET News.
Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9955083-7.html
Tanner, L. (2008, February 9). Hospital using Wii in combat injury rehab. Navy Times.
Retrieved from http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/02/ap_wiihabilitation_080209/
Mollman, S. (2007, July 27). Wii + Second Life = New training simulator. Wired.
Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/news/2007/07/wiimote
Frazer, G. (2007, December 6). How to nurture innovation in your business. Computer Weekly.
Retrieved from http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2007/12/06/228478/How-to-nurture-innovation-in-your-business.htm
To prepare:
- Review the information and websites listed in the Learning Resources focusing on decision support and technological innovations in the health care field.
- Using credible resources, investigate decisions support systems or other innovations that are in their in today’s health care market.
- Select a specific technological innovation to share with your classmates.
- Develop a description of your selected decision support system or technology innovation as if you were making a presentation to an interdisciplinary team at your practice.
- Include the potential benefits and challenges that this new system could bring to health care practices and the effect it could have on outcomes.
By Day 3 post a cohesive response that addresses the following:
- Describe your selected technology, including when it was first introduced into the health care industry.
Assess the applications of the technology, noting the benefits and potential challenges of the innovation.
Appraise the potential of the innovation to improve health care practice and related outcomes.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings
Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.
By Day 6 respond to at least two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:
- Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.
- Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
- Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
- Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
- Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
- Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.
Return 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.
Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.
Click on the Reply button below to post your response.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support and Innovative Informatics Tools
Sample Answer for NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools
The first wearable devices can be traced back to the late 50s, when an implantable pacemaker was developed for arrhythmia patients (Guk et al, 209). Over the last 6 decades, wearable devices have evolved from being implanted into our bodies to devices we can simply wear on our hands. Wearable devices include wristbands, smartwatches, wearable mobile sensors, and other mobile hub medical devices that collect a large range of data from blood sugar and exercise routines to sleep and mood. Patient data are collected either through consumer reporting or passively through sensors in apps that communicate with devices through application programming interfaces (APIs); these data are then shared through data aggregators such as Apple’s HealthKit that pools data from multiple health apps (Dinh-Le et al, 2019).
These devices have a wide range of benefits. They provide Real-time health monitoring of vital statistics, providing more timely data for analysis. Additionally, through these devices, earlier detection of disease or risk of a major health event has improved, preventing unnecessary deaths (Dinh-Le et al, 2019). Wearable devices also contribute to instant notification when biometric readings move into a risk zone. Further, there is also convenience of not having to schedule an office visit, especially during this pandemic period occasioned by lockdowns (Dinh-Le et al, 2019). Easy sharing of health data between remote patients and clinicians throughout the patient care ecosystem is also enhanced.
However, these devices still face a myriad of challenges which affect their application. Consider an issue such as a device malfunctioning and giving the wrong data. This could result in misinterpretation of results, leading to undesired consequences for both the patient and the physician (Dinh-Le et al, 2019). One of the primary benefits of wearable devices is the amount of data available for patients and doctors to analyze and to act upon. But, with that data comes the risk of data breaches and the stored information falling into the wrong hands. In conclusion, these devices have the potential of improving healthcare practice and related outcomes. They collected and analyze a vast amount of patient data using artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms such as nearest neighbor search which allows for the early diagnosis of chronic conditions, ensuring the patient receives primary care early enough. The implication herein is they enhance preventive/proactive healthcare. NNS for example has been combined with logistic regression to develop wearable devices that enhance diagnostic processes in neonatal sepsis, reducing mortality rates significantly (Xiao et al, 2010).
References
Dinh-Le, C., Chuang, R., Chokshi, S., & Mann, D. (2019). Wearable Health Technology and Electronic
Health Record Integration: Scoping Review and Future Directions. JMIR mHealth and uHealth,
7(9), e12861. https://doi.org/10.2196/12861
Guk, K., Han, G., Lim, J., Jeong, K., Kang, T., Lim, E. K., & Jung, J. (2019). Evolution of Wearable Devices
with Real-Time Disease Monitoring for Personalized Healthcare. Nanomaterials (Basel,
Switzerland), 9(6), 813. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano9060813
Xiao, Y., Griffin, M. P., Lake, D. E., & Moorman, J. R. (2010). Nearest-neighbor and logisticregression analyses of clinical and heart rate characteristics in the early diagnosis of neonatal sepsis. Medical Decision Making, 30(2), 258-266.
Sample Answer 2 for NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools
Technology in healthcare has advanced to remain current with trends. Through evidence-based practices, the need to expand is recognized even in everyday habits. The purpose of this entry is to explore the voice activated technology Dragon Medical, application of the product, and its modernization capacity.
Typing is a skill that many have yet to master. Often time, this can cause a delay in documentation, reducing patient care delivery. Ball & Hinton (2011) positions that “advances in technology have enabled us to communicate in new ways, each one more “immediate” tan the last; from the telegraph to the telephone; from radio to television; from fax machines to email; from online message boards to text messaging on cell phones” (Ball et al., 2011, p. 303). Dragon Medical is a voice activated software that allows the user to dictate their input rather than type.
Dragon Medical is a speech-initiated software, utilized by Veteran Administration, which was introduced by Nuance Communications in 2014. Compatible with VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and Cerner Millennium, it is a key productivity component in Electronic Health Record (EHR) solutions throughout the federal government, including Veterans Affairs and the military Health System (United States, n.d.-b, para. 3). The majority of the providers in the emergency are contract employees and navigating the CPRS system can be troublesome. The Dragon Medical has been an asset to the documentation time and ease for the providers.
The pandemic has caused an increase of stress for providers, resulting in burnout. For the first time in history, a generation exists that has never known a world without the Internet, cellphones, online social networks, blogs, and other electronic media (American Nurses Association [ANA], 2015, p. 53). The elder providers have to adapt to changes in technology to remain competitive with younger counterparts. Pandemic physician burnout caused by a staggering administrative workload of electronic paperwork to document patient care and to meet requirements for insurance coverage, financial reimbursement, and medicolegal protection (United States, n.d.-a, para. 2). The introduction of the voice-activated software assists with the entry of progress notes in the electronic health record, reducing typing time and improving data entry.
Adapting new technology in the workplace assists with meeting goals and improving healthcare delivery. Advancements in healthcare continue to grow and progress daily. Nursing informatics is a trend that will continue to enhance as technology evolves.
References
American Nurses Association. (2015). Scope and standards of practice: Nursing Informatics (2nd ed.). ANA.
Ball, M. J., Douglas, J. V., Hinton Walker, P., DuLong, D., Gugerty, B., Hannah, K. J., &Troseth, M. R. (2011). Nursing Informatics: Where technology and caring meet (4th ed.) [Eds.]. London, England: Springer-Vertag.
United States. (n.d.-a). Nuance and Cerner Expand Strategic Voice AI Collaboration to include Dragon Medical Virtual Assistant Technology (2020, August 1) [Mena Report]. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A631252529/EAI?u=minn4020&sid=ebsco&xid=e6f30bf
United States. (n.d.-b). U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Migrates to Nuance Dragon Medical One with FedRAMP Authorized Solution (2021, September 16) [Mena Report].
Sample Answer 3 for NURS 8210 Discussion Decision Support And Innovative Informatics Tools
Your focus on wearable device technology is welldone and superbly detailed. You have highlighted important points about application of the wearable devices, benefits and shortcomings, and how the technology can improve health care practice. This is essential in understanding the context and implementation of wearable devices. However, when designing and implementing wearable devices, it is important to consider range of questions (Kim & Park, 2019). For instance, what vital wearer characteristics are considered? Essentially, every individual has unique skin, and every skin is breathing and regenerates. Coupled with other factors such as diet, age, environmental factors, ethnicity, and culture, they can influence the success of wearable devices. For instance, if the wearer is an older person or an infant, the skin will be fragile, while is the wearer is an adolescent; the device should withstand oily body. It is only important to determine whether the objective of the wearable device is meticulously assessed (Wu & Luo, 2019). This involves understanding the user and what they intend the device to do routinely. This critical in determining the level of complexity and details needed to create an effective device (Krey, 2020).
References
Kim, J., & Park, E. (2019). Beyond coolness: Predicting the technology adoption of interactive wearable devices. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 49, 114-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.013
Krey, M. (2020). Wearable device technology in healthcare—Exploring constraining and enabling factors. In Fourth International Congress on Information and Communication Technology (pp. 1-13). Springer, Singapore. 10.1007/978-981-15-0637-6_1
Wu, M., & Luo, J. (2019). Wearable technology applications in healthcare: a literature review. Online J Nurs Inform, 23(3). https://www.himss.org/resources/wearable-technology-applications-healthcare-literature-review
Content
Name: NURS_8210_Week7_Discussion_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION
Discussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct. |
Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*. |
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*. |
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*. |
|
| CONTENT KNOWLEDGE | Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course. |
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. |
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course. |
|
| CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION | Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. |
Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature |
Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas |
|
| QUALITY OF WRITING | Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;. |
Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)
Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%)
Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
|
| Total Points: 30 | |||||