coursework-banner

NURS 8100 Discussion Technology And Cost Containment

NURS 8100 Discussion Technology And Cost Containment

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NURS 8100 Discussion Technology and Cost Containment

In response to continually rising health care costs, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) provision was created to promote the meaningful use of health care information technology through numerous incentive programs for health care providers. By enhancing data collection, streamlining electronic medical records, and increasing transparency, it is believed that significant cost savings can be realized as well as other positive outcomes. What are some of the tradeoffs involved in this type of policy?

To prepare:

Reflect on the challenges of containing health care costs in the U.S. presented in the Learning Resources and discussed by Dr. Kominski and Dr. Zelman in the media.
Consider how information technology may be used to address health care issues related to cost.
Examine the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) provision and its goals.
By Day 3

Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

Briefly summarize a significant challenge to containing health care costs.

NURS 8100 Discussion Technology and Cost Containment
NURS 8100 Discussion Technology and Cost Containment

How do policy makers envision technology could be utilized to address this challenge (above)? Provide at least one example to support your response.
Do you agree or disagree with the policy makers? Describe why you agree or disagree and include one or more insights from this analysis that relate to the question of how information technology could, or could not, help contain costs while supporting health care reform initiatives.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NURS 8100 Discussion Technology and Cost Containment

NURS 8100 Discussion Technology and Cost Containment
NURS 8100 Discussion Technology and Cost Containment

 

NURS 8100 Discussion Technology and Cost Containment
NURS 8100 Discussion Technology and Cost Containment

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.

Note: Please see the Syllabus and Discussion Rubric for formal Discussion question posting and response evaluation criteria.

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.

Name: NURS_8100_Week5_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View

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
Name: NURS_8100_Week5_Discussion_Rubric

Also Read: NURS 8100 Discussion Agenda Setting

In the world today technology is inevitable in all industry sectors. Health care is not an exception. There is an added cost in trying to make technology secure. There are however other costs that are challenging to the health care system and one such cost will be addressed in this discussion.

Significant Challenge to Containing Health Care Costs.

The cost of health care in the United States can be attributed to many reasons. A glimpse of the cost is mentioned as a summation of over four million dollars in the year 2020 alone (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2021). Unnecessary emergency room (ER) visits in United States is one of the challenges that make containing health care costs a hard task. According to Rubin, (2021), in the year 2017 alone there were over one hundred and forty-four million ER visits that costed over seventy-six billion. This statistic is alarming.

Health care cost reduction can be achieved by eliminating of unnecessary ER visits (Walden University, Producer (2011).  The root cause of these visits can be attributed to numerous factors including underpaying health care providers who opt to send their patients to ER instead of taking care of them in an outpatient clinic.

Cost containment is therefore easier said than done because to reduce ER visits means to have an effective system of health care delivery. One way this would be achievable would be to manage chronic conditions like hypoglycemia without involving ER visit.  Knowing how expensive going to the ER can be has led to different interventions being put in place to reduce these visits.

According to Lyons, Olson, Palmer, Horwitz, Mandl & Fine  (2017), those who frequent the ER can be identified but unfortunately there are those who use multiple ERs. These patients who visit different ERs may lead to duplicative and unnecessary care.

Policy Makers Envision of Technology

Technology has made it possible for clinicians to access health information from different sources. In the ERs clinicians sometimes have to make quick decisions and with technology it would be possible to have knowledge regarding previous care. Simple information like allergies would be accessible to clinicians. Having history and physical information in a data base that would be accessed at the ER would make the visit less time consuming. According to Ojetti, Covino, Brigida, Petruzziello, Saviano, Migneco, Candelli & Franceschi (2020), sometimes the ER is is viewed by patients as a place to have solutions to health care problems. With technology, the ER clinicians can determine after having access of health care information if a patient needs to be triaged to the next level of care or needs to be discharged.

 

One Example

One example of use of technology is one that is required in the state of Maryland. Chesapeake Regional Information System for our Patients (CRISP). This is the state of Maryland designated health information exchange. As a provider especially in the ER one has to log in to CRISP and is able to see all the scheduled medications that the patient is taking, the last refill, the provider who wrote the prescription and the pharmacy that the medications were filled. This information is critical because there are some patients who visit the ER expecting to be given narcotics when they already have current supply for a month.

 

Agree or Disagree with the Policy Makers.

The long term effect of using technology remains positive from the point of view of the provider. It is therefore fair to be agreeable with the stakeholders. According to Fereydon, Roghayeh, Ahmad & Mohsen (2020), technology has the ability of having a positive impact in health care improvement in regards to quality, safety, and efficiency. It is however important to acknowledge there would be a cost related to training and implementing and sustaining technology. However, in the ER technology offers critical information for patients that is urgently needed to aid in treatment modalities. This information sharing saves time which in turn saves the cost of treatment.

 

References

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (December, 2021). National Expenditure Data https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical

Fereydon ,E., Roghayeh, S., Ahmad, J., & Mohsen, S. (2020). The Use of Health Information Technology by Nurses in Healthcare. Preventive Care in Nursing and Midwifery Journal9(1), 36–39.

Lyons, T. W., Olson, K. L., Palmer, N. P., Horwitz, R., Mandl, K. D., & Fine, A. M. (2017). Patients Visiting Multiple Emergency Departments: Patterns, Costs, and Risk Factors. Academic Emergency Medicine24(11), 1349–1357. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13304

Ojetti, V., Covino, M., Brigida, M.,  Petruzziello, C., Saviano, A.,Migneco, A., Candelli, M & Franceschi, F. (2020). Non-COVID Diseases during the Pandemic: Where Have All Other Emergencies Gone? Medicina56(512), 512. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56100512

Rubin, R. (2021). The Costs of US Emergency Department Visits. JAMA325(4), 333. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.26936

Walden University, LLC. (Executive Producer). (2011). Healthcare policy and advocacy: Cost containment. Baltimore: Author.

Bottom of Form