DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
Chamberlain University DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)– Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Chamberlain University DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record) 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 DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Chamberlain University DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record) 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 DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
The introduction for the Chamberlain University DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record) 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 DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
After the introduction, move into the main part of the DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record) 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 DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
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 DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
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 DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record) 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.
Patient portals and personal health records (PHRs) are
commonplace today. What are the pros and cons of having a PHR? What safeguards
and decision-making support tools are included in patient portals and PHRs to
help patients and healthcare professionals ensure safety?
What are the pros and cons of the situation in the case study?
Sample Answer for DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
A patient has access to some of their medical data as entered by their healthcare provider via their Personal Health Record (PHR) (Hebda, Hunter, & Czar, 2019, p. 113). The pros of PHRs are that the patient can communicate with their provider as well as have access some of their medical records, therefore allowing the patient to be more aware and involved in their care. The cons for this situation are that the patient was not able to access their full medical records. The fact that the patient was only able to access a portion of her lab results can make the patient more apprehensive about what they weren’t able to see. I believe this can cause the patient to speculate more about what the possible missing results are.
What safeguards are included in patient portals and PHRs to help patients and healthcare professionals ensure safety?
In order to access one’s own PHR portal, the individual most first sign multiple waivers at their healthcare provider’s facility. Usually this includes a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) disclosure and a waiver from the application or program used to access the PHR (Lester, Boateng, Studeny, & Coustasse, 2016). Once the waivers have been signed, the patient then selects a username and password using security questions and a personal email.
Do you agree or disagree with the way that a patient obtains Personal Health Records (PHRs)?
I agree with the current practices used for patients to obtain PHRs. I appreciate that this is optional for patients, and not the only way to access these records. There is still a population of patients who wish to keep track of their medical records in paper form instead of electronically. In the future, I believe technology will advance to where all medical records can be added to a universal database that is accessible by patients and healthcare providers from different institutions, seamlessly.
What are challenges for patients that do not have access to all of the PHRs? Remember, only portions of the EHRs are typically included in the PHRs.
The challenge for patients that do not have access to all of the PHRs is that all information that is a part of their Electronic Health Record (EHR) does not automatically become a part of their PHR. This situation highlights the worst part of PHRs, which is that separate institutions do not share results and medical records automatically. PHR databases are not perfect and may not include the complete results and reports, which can be troublesome. For patients who want complete medical records, they should stick with old-fashioned paper copies of their medical records.
References
Hebda, T., Hunter, K., & Czar, P. (2019). Handbook of informatics for nurses & healthcare professionals (6th ed.). Pearson.
Lester, M., Boateng, S., Studeny, J., & Coustasse, A. (2016). Personal Health Records: Beneficial or Burdensome for Patients and Healthcare Providers?. Perspectives in health information management, 13 (Spring), 1h.
ALSO READ:
DeVRY NR 361- Week 4 Assignment: Information Systems Paper Information Systems in Healthcare Paper
DeVRY NR 361 Week 5 discussion Documentation and Reimbursement
NR 361 Week 6 Interview with a Nurse Information Expert Guidelines
NR 361 Week 6: Interview With a Nurse Information Expert
DeVry nr 361: Week 6: Interview with a Nurse Information Expert
DeVRY NR 361 Week 6 discussion Distractors in our Environment
DeVRY NR 361-Week 6 Assignment: Interview with a Nurse Information Expert
DeVRY NR 361 Week 7 discussion Use of Personal Communication Devices in Patient Care Settings
DeVRY NR 361 Week 8 discussion Reflective and Projected Practice
Sample Answer 2 for DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
What are the pros and cons of the situation in the case study? The implementation of EHRS in the medical field has provided many benefits for both patients and providers. This long list of benefits includes improved safety, easier access to a patient’s chart which allows for faster care, and improved control over health information for the consumer (Hebda and Hunter, 2019). There are many pros to this scenario. I would like to highlight the efficiency aspect that the patient can review the information received by their healthcare provider as quickly as they can log in. The information can be reviewed multiple times for the patient to obtain a better understanding of their results and condition. The patient can easily share accurate information with the family and other providers. The patient’s ability to recollect what has been said to them by the provider may be altered for many reasons so the PHR is a great place to review. The PHR can be a reminder for symptoms that need to be reported, follow-up appointments, and new questions that may arise after the provider contact. In general, a tool to promote patient involvement. The greatest con to the scenario is that the patient was not able to access all their information in one place. As explained by (Lester M, Boateng S, Studeny J, and Coustasse A), some standards support interoperability and have started to take hold in the realm of PHRs. Blue Button and direct secure messaging are two such examples that have been incorporated into many PHR systems (2016). I am surprised by all the ways technology has advanced that we are not all using a system to universally integrate the different EHR’s. If this were the case it would make the patient experience more complete and the usability of the PHR more meaningful.
What safeguards are included inpatient portals and PHRs to help patients and healthcare professionals ensure safety? There are many safeguards in place to help both patients and healthcare providers. When accessing a PHR there are security questions, PINs, and MRN numbers that are specific to the patient. The providers entering information also have passcodes specific to them when entering information so this data can be traced back to the author. These safeguards not only help keep information confidential but also accurate.
Do you agree or disagree with the way that a patient obtains Personal Health Records (PHRs)? I agree with the right of a patient to have access to their information. As we develop and improve upon the PHR it will become more useful and effective for this objective. Allowing a patient to review their records can help them gain better insight into their health. This can allow them to develop questions for the next visit and help them be better informed regarding decisions and the direction of their care.
What are the challenges for patients that do not have access to all the PHRs? Remember, only portions of the EHRs are typically included in the PHRs. The great challenges for patients not being able to access all their information revolve around them not seeing the complete picture. It will be hard for them to understand a holistic approach to healthcare decision-making if they do not see all the pieces of the puzzle. If information is not in the PHR then it is the healthcare provider’s responsibility to inform and explain what is missing. I have had patients pull all this information together into spreadsheets. They bring the spreadsheets with them when they are admitted to the hospital and it makes the admission process much more efficient and smoother. This affects the quality of care and patient satisfaction in their stay.
References
Hebda, T., Hunter, K., & Czar, P. (2019). Handbook of informatics for nurses & healthcare professionals (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Lester M, Boateng S, Studeny J, and Coustasse A, (April 2016) Personal Health Records: Beneficial or Burdensome for Patients and Healthcare Providers? Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://chamberlain-on-worldcat-org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/oclc/6031930212
Sample Answer 3 for DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
I agree with your detailed discussion highlighting the pros and cons of EHR and the benefits that it facilitates to the patient. However, don’t you think that the improved accessibility to medical records by the patients can pose a negative impact on their mental health? For instance, patients above 65 years have been suggested to have less acknowledgment regarding their disease status, since, they do not have an adequate medical awareness (Lester, Boateng, Studeny, & Coustasse 2016). As far as the issue of safeguarding is concerned, I strongly agree with employing the usage of security questions, PINs, and MRN numbers. We hope that the EHR with all the technological advancements continues to serve humanity and help it in attaining positive health care outcomes.
Reference
Lester, M., Boateng, S., Studeny, J., & Coustasse, A. (2016). Personal Health Records: Beneficial or Burdensome for Patients and Healthcare Providers?. Perspectives in health information management, 13(Spring), 1h.
Name: Discussion Rubric
| Excellent
90–100 |
Good
80–89 |
Fair
70–79 |
Poor
0–69 |
|||
| Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. |
31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references. |
0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references. |
||
| Main Posting:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
||
| Main Posting:
Timely and full participation |
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date. |
||
| First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
| First Response:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
||
| First Response:
Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
||
| Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
| Second Response: Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
||
| Second Response: Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
||
| Total Points: 100 | ||||||
Name: Discussion Rubric
Also Read: DeVRY NR 361 Week 5 discussion Documentation and Reimbursement