coursework-banner

NR 599 Week 3 Discussion EHRs Benefits and Drawbacks

NR 599 Week 3 Discussion EHRs Benefits and Drawbacks

NR 599 Week 3 Discussion EHRs Benefits and Drawbacks

Purpose

The ideas and beliefs underpinning the discussions guide students through engaging dialogues as they achieve the desired learning outcomes/competencies associated with their course in a manner that empowers them to organize, integrate, apply and critically appraise their knowledge to their selected field of practice. The ebb and flow of a discussion is based upon the composition of student and faculty interaction in the quest for relevant scholarship.

Part of the stage one requirements for meaningful use criteria is increasing compliance with medication reconciliation (Resnick, et al., 2016). Medication reconciliation can be such an important part of our care as an APRN. Until I worked in home health and sat down with each patient to not only go over each and every medication they are taking including vitamins and supplement but also have them show me how they were taking them each day, I found that almost none of the patients were doing so correctly. Since this experience I make sure to do a full medication reconciliation with each patient and make sure they known the importance of telling their providers of all vitamins and supplement as well. With a proper medication reconciliation we can help to avoid those drug-to-drug interactions.

Resnick, C. M., Meara, J. G., Peltzman, M., & Gilley, M. (2016). Meaningful use: A program in transition.Links to an external site.Links to an external site. Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons, 101(3), 10-16.

The use of CPOE has truly reduced the risk of cross prescribing, medication errors and poly pharmacy in most cases. To combat the risk of drug to drug interaction in patients taking medicines that were not prescribed by the health provider like natural remedies or over the counter meds, the NP needs to be thorough in getting clear and precise information from the patient prior to prescribing the meds. Also patients with access to their EHR are  involved in their positive health outcome and are more likely to verbalize to their health care provider any medicine or natural products they may be on or even ask the provider what they think about the natural remedies before deciding to take such products. Patients are also encouraged to bring their current medications and natural remedies to their healthcare provider visit as well. A strong positive interpersonal relationship between the healthcare provider and the patient is also encouraged. Patients are most likely to open up about remedies and practices they have tried to a provider that they are comfortable with.  Thank you.

Carrera-Hueso, Merino-Plaza, M. J., Ramón-Barrios, M. A., Lopez-Merino, E. I., Vazquez-Ferreiro, P., & Poquet-Jornet, J. (2019). Proposed model to determine satisfaction with computerised provider order entry systems in a long-stay hospital. European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. Science and Practice26(2), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2017-001345Links to an external site.

 

This is an excellent topic, as the consumption of vitamins, supplements, and herbs has increased. Approximately 76% of adults in the U.S. consumed herbal supplements in 2017, compared to 2012 when it was about 64% (Choi & Song, 2021). It is essential to know interactions, as patient safety is a priority. To tackle this issue, I would ask if the patient is taking anything not prescribed by a physician. There could be leading questions asked to help remind or guide the patient. Asking the patient to bring in the bottles of the supplements or photos would help. Educate the patient on the importance of disclosing everything they are taking. As a provider, I can educate myself on the interactions of vitamins/ all-natural items and the interactions with pharmaceuticals as well as food. Books and databases are available that can be utilized on the spot or to gain more knowledge in general. It is impossible to know every single interaction as not all interactions are reported or traced back to the culprit. However, it is essential to educate ourselves as much as possible on interactions and alternatives outside of pharmaceutical medications.

 

Choi, M.-K., & Song, I.-S. (2021). Pharmacokinetic Drug–drug interactions and herb–drug interactions. Pharmaceutics13(5), 610. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13050610

Activity Learning Outcomes

Through this discussion, the student will demonstrate the ability to:

Contribute level-appropriate knowledge and experience to the topic in a discussion environment that models professional and social interaction (CO4)

Actively engage in the written ideas of others by carefully reading, researching, reflecting, and responding to the contributions of their peers and course faculty (CO5)

Requirements:

Post a written response in the discussion forum to EACH threaded discussion topic:

As discussed in the lesson and assigned reading for this week, EHRs provide both benefits and drawbacks. Create a “Pros” versus “Cons” table and include at least 3 items for each list. Next to each item, provide a brief rationale as to why you selected to include it on the respective list.

Refer to the Stage 3 objectives for Meaningful Use located in this week’s lesson under the heading Meaningful Use and the HITECH Act. Select two objectives to research further. In your own words, provide a brief discussion as to how the objective may impact your role as an APN in clinical practice.

Adhere to the following guidelines regarding quality for the threaded discussions in Canvas:

Application of Course Knowledge: Demonstrate the ability to analyze, synthesize, and/or apply principles and concepts learned in the course lesson and outside readings.

Scholarliness and Scholarly Sources: Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic decisions using valid, relevant, and reliable outside scholarly source to contribute to the discussion thread.

Writing Mechanics: Grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation are accurate. In-text and reference citations should be formatted using correct APA guidelines.

Direct Quotes: Good writing calls for the limited use of direct quotes. Direct quotes in discussions are to be limited to one short quotation (not to exceed 15 words). The quote must add substantively to the discussion. Points will be deducted under the grammar, syntax, APA category.

For each threaded discussion per week, the student will select no less than TWO scholarly sources to support the initial discussion post.

Scholarly Sources: Only scholarly sources are acceptable for citation and reference in this course. These include peer-reviewed publications, government reports, or sources written by a professional or scholar in the field. The textbooks and lessons are NOT considered to be outside scholarly sources. For the threaded discussions and reflection posts, reputable internet sources such as websites by government agencies (URL ends in .gov) and respected organizations (often ends in .org) can be counted as scholarly sources. The best outside scholarly source to use is a peer-reviewed nursing journal.  You are encouraged to use the Chamberlain library and search one of the available databases for a peer-reviewed journal article.  The following sources should not be used: Wikipedia, Wikis, or blogs.  These websites are not considered scholarly as anyone can add to these. Please be aware that .com websites can vary in scholarship and quality.  For example, the American Heart Association is a .com site with scholarship and quality.  It is the responsibility of the student to determine the scholarship and quality of any .com site.  Ask your instructor before using any site if you are unsure. Points will be deducted from the rubric if the site does not demonstrate scholarship or quality. Current outside scholarly sources must be published with the last 5 years.  Instructor permission must be obtained BEFORE the assignment is due if using a source that is older than 5 years.

Late Assignment Policy

NR 599 Week 3 Discussion EHRs Benefits and Drawbacks
NR 599 Week 3 Discussion EHRs Benefits and Drawbacks

Students are expected to submit assignments by the time they are due. Assignments submitted after the due date and time will receive a deduction of 10% of the total points possible for that assignment for each day the assignment is late. Assignments will be accepted, with penalty as described, up to a maximum of three days late, after which point a zero will be recorded for the assignment.

In the event of an emergency that prevents timely submission of an assignment, students may petition their instructor for a waiver of the late submission grade reduction. The instructor will review the student’s rationale for the request and make a determination based on the merits of the student’s appeal. Consideration of the student’s total course performance to date will be a contributing factor in the determination. Students should continue to attend class, actively participate, and complete other assignments while the appeal is pending.

Also Check Out: NR 599 Nursing Informatics for Advanced Practice Week 1 Discussion

This Policy applies to assignments that contribute to the numerical calculation of the course letter grade.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NR 599 Week 3 Discussion EHRs Benefits and Drawbacks

Evaluation Methods

The maximum score in this class is 1,000 points. The categories, which contribute to your final grade, are weighted as follows.

Graded Item Points Weighting
Discussion (50 points, Weeks 1–7; 25 points, Week 8) 375 37.5%
Shared Governance Model Paper (Week 3) 200 20%
Management of Power Paper (Week 5) 200 20%
Executive Summary (Week 7) 225 22.5%
Total 1,000 100%

No extra credit assignments are permitted for any reason.

All of your course requirements are graded using points. At the end of the course, the points are converted to a letter grade using the scale in the table below. Percentages of 0.5% or higher are not raised to the next whole number. A final grade of 76% (letter grade C) is required to pass the course.

Letter Grade Points Percentage
A   940–1,000 94% to 100%
A-  920–939 92% to 93%
B+ 890–919 89% to 91%
B   860–889 86% to 88%
B-  840–859 84% to 85%
C+ 810–839 81% to 83%
C   760–809 76% to 80%
F   759 and below 75% and below

NOTE:To receive credit for a week’s discussion, students may begin posting no earlier than the Sunday immediately before each week opens. Unless otherwise specified, access to most weeks begins on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. MT, and that week’s assignments are due by the next Sunday by 11:59 p.m. MT. Week 8 opens at 12:01 a.m. MT Sunday and closes at 11:59 p.m. MT Wednesday. Any assignments and all discussion requirements must be completed by 11:59 p.m. MT Wednesday of the eighth week.

Students agree that, by taking this course, all required papers may be subject to submission for textual similarity review to Turnitin.com for the detection of plagiarism. All submitted papers will be included as source documents in the Turnitin.com reference database solely for the purpose of detecting plagiarism of such papers. Use of the Turnitin.com service is subject to the Terms and Conditions of Use posted on the Turnitin.com site.

Participation for MSN

Threaded Discussion Guiding Principles

The ideas and beliefs underpinning the threaded discussions (TDs) guide students through engaging dialogues as they achieve the desired learning outcomes/competencies associated with their course in a manner that empowers them to organize, integrate, apply and critically appraise their knowledge to their selected field of practice. The use of TDs provides students with opportunities to contribute level-appropriate knowledge and experience to the topic in a safe, caring, and fluid environment that models professional and social interaction. The TD’s ebb and flow is based upon the composition of student and faculty interaction in the quest for relevant scholarship. Participation in the TDs generates opportunities for students to actively engage in the written ideas of others by carefully reading, researching, reflecting, and responding to the contributions of their peers and course faculty. TDs foster the development of members into a community of learners as they share ideas and inquiries, consider perspectives that may be different from their own, and integrate knowledge from other disciplines.

Participation Guidelines

Each weekly threaded discussion is worth up to 25 points. Students must post a minimum of two times in each graded thread. The two posts in each individual thread must be on separate days. The student must provide an answer to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week. If the student does not provide an answer to each graded thread topic (not a response to a student peer) before the Wednesday deadline, 5 points are deducted for each discussion thread in which late entry occurs (up to a 10-point deduction for that week). Subsequent posts, including essential responses to peers, must occur by the Sunday deadline, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week.

Direct Quotes

Good writing calls for the limited use of direct quotes. Direct quotes in Threaded Discussions are to be limited to one short quotation (not to exceed 15 words). The quote must add substantively to the discussion. Points will be deducted under the Grammar, Syntax, APA category.

Grading Rubric Guidelines

Performance Category 10 9 8 4 0

Scholarliness

Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic decisions.

  • Provides relevant evidence of scholarly inquiry clearly stating how the evidence informed or changed professional or academic decisions
  • Evaluates literature resources to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis.
  • Uses valid, relevant, and reliable outside sources to contribute to the threaded discussion
  • Provides relevant evidence of scholarly inquiry but does not clearly state how the evidence informed or changed professional or academic decisions.
  • Evaluates information from source(s) to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis.
  • Uses some valid, relevant, reliable outside sources to contribute to the threaded discussion.
  • Discusses using scholarly inquiry but does not state how scholarly inquiry informed or changed professional or academic decisions.
  • Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis.
  • Little valid, relevant, or reliable outside sources are used to contribute to the threaded discussion.
  • Demonstrates little or no understanding of the topic.
  • Discusses using scholarly inquiry but does not state how scholarly inquiry informed or changed professional or academic decisions.
  • Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation.
  • The posting uses information that is not valid, relevant, or reliable
  • No evidence of the use of scholarly inquiry to inform or change professional or academic decisions.
  • Information is not valid, relevant, or reliable
Performance Category  10 9 8 4 0

Application of Course Knowledge –

Demonstrate the ability to analyze, synthesize, and/or apply principles and concepts learned in the course lesson and outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations

  • Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed in the lesson or drawn from relevant outside sources;
  • Applies concepts to personal experience in the professional setting and or relevant application to real life.
  • Posts make direct reference to concepts discussed in the lesson or drawn from relevant outside sources.
  • Applies concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life
  • Interactions with classmates are relevant to the discussion topic but do not make direct reference to lesson content
  • Posts are generally on topic but do not build knowledge by incorporating concepts and principles from the lesson.
  • Does not attempt to apply lesson concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life
  • Does not demonstrate a solid understanding of the principles and concepts presented in the lesson
  • Posts do not adequately address the question posed either by the discussion prompt or the instructor’s launch post.
  • Posts are superficial and do not reflect an understanding of the lesson content
  • Does not attempt to apply lesson concepts to personal experience in their professional setting and or relevant application to real life
  • Posts are not related to the topics provided by the discussion prompt or by the instructor; attempts by the instructor to redirect the student are ignored
  • No discussion of lesson concepts to personal experience in the professional setting and or relevant application to real life
Performance Category  5 4 3 2 0

Interactive Dialogue

Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts a minimum of two times in each graded thread, on separate days.

(5 points possible per graded thread)

  • Exceeds minimum post requirements
  • Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts three or more times in each graded thread, over three separate days.
  • Replies to a post posed by faculty and to a peer
  • Summarizes what was learned from the lesson, readings, and other student posts for the week.
  • Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts a minimum of two times in each graded thread, on separate days
  • Replies to a question posed by a peer

Summarizes what was learned from the lesson, readings, and other student posts for the week.

  • Meets expectations of 2 posts on 2 different days.
  • The main post is not made by the Wednesday deadline
  • Does not reply to a question posed by a peer or faculty
  • Has only one post for the week
  • Discussion posts contain few, if any, new ideas or applications; often are a rehashing or summary of other students’ comments
  • Does not post to the thread
  • No connections are made to the topic
Minus 1 Point Minus 2 Point Minus 3 Point Minus 4 Point Minus 5 Point
Grammar, Syntax, APA

Note: if there are only a few errors in these criteria, please note this for the student in as an area for improvement. If the student does not make the needed corrections in upcoming weeks, then points should be deducted.

Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing.

The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition

  • 2-3 errors in APA format.
  • Written responses have 2-3 grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors.
  • Writing style is generally clear, focused, and facilitates communication.
  • 4-5 errors in APA format.
  • Writing responses have 4-5 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors.
  • Writing style is somewhat focused.
  • 6-7 errors in APA format.
  • Writing responses have 6-7 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors.
  • Writing style is slightly focused making discussion difficult to understand.
  • 8-10 errors in APA format.
  • Writing responses have 8-10 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors.
  • Writing style is not focused, making discussion difficult to understand.
  • Post contains greater than 10 errors in APA format.
  • Written responses have more than 10 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors.
  • Writing style does not facilitate communication.
  • The student continues to make repeated mistakes in any of the above areas after written correction by the instructor
0 points lost -5 points lost

Total Participation Requirements

per discussion thread

The student answers the threaded discussion question or topic on one day and posts a second response on another day. The student does not meet the minimum requirement of two postings on two different days

Early Participation Requirement

per discussion thread

The student must provide a substantive answer to the graded discussion question(s) or topic(s), posted by the course instructor (not a response to a peer), by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week. The student does not meet the requirement of a substantive response to the stated question or topic by Wednesday at 11:59 pm MT.