coursework-banner

NUR 752 Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools

NUR 752 Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools

NUR 752 Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools

Introduction

Your organization has set a goal to expand the use of web-based tools for their patients for your unit. As a DNP leader, you are tasked with the responsibility of selecting a web-based platform to support and improve client care within your unit at your facility. Through the lens of usability, evaluate one consumer healthcare website, consumer eHealth program aim, or electronic web-based intervention tool that you might use with your client population. Create a written proposal with your recommendation to the board.

Assignment Guidelines

Part I: Research and Identification

Step 1: Gather user experience and usability information.

Step 2: Identify one specific web-based tool to evaluate.

Types of web-based platforms include:

  • Consumer healthcare websites
  • Consumer eHealth program aims
  • Web-based intervention tools (Do not include e-visit or telecommunication tools as they were covered in the discussion posting.)

Part II: Written Proposal

Step 3: Evaluate one web-based platform.

  • Describe the client population.
  • Explain the type of web-based platform you would advise to support the care delivery.
  • Evaluate one consumer healthcare website, consumer eHealth program aim, or electronic intervention tool you might use with your patient population.
    • Evaluate for the balance between context, content, and user needs.
    • Describe the user’s experience:
      • Usefulness, Desirability, Findability, Accessibility, Credibility (and accuracy), and Value.
      • Calculate the readability level. (Select a site for calculating readability; there are many such sites out there.)
      • Advise on usability. Although you can’t complete the testing, you can address design, ease of learning, efficiency of use, memorability, and potential error frequency.
      • Appraise how well the sites support consumers’ healthcare needs.
    • Provide an overall summary of the pros and cons of the site.

Formatting and Mechanics

  • Utilize APA formatting and style.
  • Submit your paper as a Word document that includes the content for the proposal.

Submission

Submit your assignment and review full grading criteria on the Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools page.

The unit I work for is a 32-bed adult medical-oncology unit.  Though acuity has changed with covid, my unit now is the only other floor to accept tracheostomy patients.  As we all know patient acuity has been increasing as patients have chronic concerns that are hard to address, though another aspect of my unit is the number of new graduate nurses.  As we all know impact from staffing shortages another barrier to success in my unit is a wealth of knowledge and support due to new members.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NUR 752 Assignment 2.1: Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools

As McBride defines it, “asynchronous telemedicine involves the exchange of prerecorded data between two or more individuals at

NUR 752 Assignment 2.1 Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools
NUR 752 Assignment 2.1 Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools

different times” (p. 382, 2019).  Therefore, with that in mind I believe that per my patient population, this type of telemedicine would be most ideal.  This is partly because as society changes with working different hours and technology becoming more advanced, patients and their providers can exchange information at different times, not needing to use video calls or be available when sharing information.  Which also allows for conversation and consultations to take place virtually at any time.

As we have learned so far in this program it is how driven the market is for the consumer.   Nothing works if there is no one to purchase the product, a consumer-driven market.  Therefore, I believe that telemedicine is driven by the consumer.  Though the concept of telemedicine is for communication between provider and patient, I believe that the patient can have most of the pull-in making changes and adding things based on their needs and wants through the application of telemedicine.

As we have read “nationally, there are 14 TRCs: 12 regional centers, all with different strengths and regional expertise, and two national centers, which focus on areas of technology assessment and telehealth policy” (McBride, p. 384, 2019).  Therefore, as far as technology can reach as many people as possible who have access, legal barriers are involved when compact nursing licensure is not in all 50 states.  There also must be taken into consideration ethical concerns is the fact that the patient-provider relationship becomes skewed.  Patients can now search through providers through scrolling and see which fits their needs and in the off chance, they don’t like the provider they can switch at ease. Though some people do not understand technology, consideration must also be made that telemedicine/ telehealth encourages one method of thinking.  Though as we all know everyone is different, their needs are different, and their qualifications are different.

Some other technologies that can be added to these visits include educational training for staff members or patients and things such as monitoring tools that link the patient’s account and readings to their HER.  This is specifically beneficial to the elderly for example, to alert medical staff if there are emergency values that are recorded.

Reference

McBride, S., & Tietze, M. (2019). Nursing Informatics for the advanced practice nurse: Patient safety, quality, outcomes, and interprofessionalism (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing Company.

Week 2 Critical Appraisal of Web-Based Tools Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
Introduction
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations (>4 to5 Points)

Introduction gives is clear and concise, introducing the situation to the reader.

4 to >3 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations (>3 to 4 Points)

Introduction is brief and/or unfocused.

3 to >2 pts
Barely Meets Expectations (>2 to3 Points)

Introduction is vague or disorganized.

2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations (0 to2 Points)

Introduction is confusing, lacks flow, and/or misleads the reader.

5 / 5 pts
Background
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations (>4 to5 Points)

A clear and concise explanation of the client population and type of web-based tool are given and described fully and succinctly.

4 to >3 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations (>3 to 4 Points)

Client population and HIT described fully but not succinctly.

3 to >2 pts
Barely Meets Expectations (>2 to3 Points)

Client population or HIT not described fully.

2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations (0 to2 Points)

Client population or HIT not clearly described.

5 / 5 pts
Assessment
30 to >27 pts
Meets Expectations (>27 to 30 Points)

Clearly and concisely evaluates HIT: -Evaluates the balance between context, content, and the user’s needs. -Describes the user’s experience, including usefulness, desirability, findability, accessibility, credibility, and value. -In terms of usability, addresses design, ease of learning, the efficiency of use, memorability, and the potential error frequency. Utilizes user experience and usability information as well as assigned readings.

27 to >25 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations (>25 to 27 Points)

HIT evaluated fully but not succinctly. Utilizes user experience and usability information, but not assigned readings.

25 to >22 pts
Barely Meets Expectations (>22 to 25 Points)

HIT evaluated fully but not succinctly. Utilizes user experience, but usability information is not used as directed.

22 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations (0 to 22 Points)

HIT evaluation is incomplete. Utilizes user experience, but usability information not used as directed and assigned readings are not included.

25 / 30 pts
Readability
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations (>4 to5 Points)

Reading level calculated and applied to patient population. Source sited.

4 to >3 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations (>3 to 4 Points)

Reading level calculated and patient population identified. Source sited.

3 to >2 pts
Barely Meets Expectations (>2 to 3 Points)

Reading level calculated. Source sited.

2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations (0 to 2 Points)

Not calculated (0). Source not sited or non-reliable source used.

2 / 5 pts
Appraisal
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectations (>4 to5 Points)

Appraises how well the site supports consumers’ healthcare needs. Provides pros and cons.

4 to >3 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations (>3 to 4 Points)

Appraised but not succinctly. Pros and cons are unclear.

3 to >2 pts
Barely Meets Expectations (>2 to 3 Points)

Appraised but not thoroughly or may lack pros or cons.

2 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations (0 to 2 Points)

Lacks appraisal or pros/cons.

5 / 5 pts
Recommendation
10 to >9 pts
Meets Expectations (>9 to 10 Points)

Recommendation for HIT is supported by strong evidence, and includes value to providers and patients.

9 to >8 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations (>8 to 9 Points)

Support is given for recommendation, including assigned readings.

8 to >7 pts
Barely Meets Expectations (>7 to 8 Points)

Weak support is given for recommendation or assigned readings are not included.

7 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations (0 to 7 Points)

Support is lacking for recommendation or assigned readings are not included.

10 / 10 pts
APA style
0 pts
1. (No Deduction)

Written clearly and concisely. No errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation.

0 pts
2. (5% Deduction) -3 points

Written clearly and concisely. Few errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are noted.

0 pts
3. (8% Deduction) -5 points

Written clearly. Several errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are found.

0 pts
4. (10% Deduction) -6 points

Writing is unclear and/or rambling or brief. Numerous distracting errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are found.

0 / 0 pts
Total Points: 52