NURS 8210 Discussion Challenges that Health Care Organizations Face When Sharing Data Across Systems

NURS 8210 Discussion Challenges that Health Care Organizations Face When Sharing Data Across Systems

NURS 8210 Discussion Challenges that Health Care Organizations Face When Sharing Data Across Systems

Challenges that Health Care Organizations Face When Sharing Data Across Systems

Health care organizations face interoperability challenges when trying to transmit, create, store, and manage health information (Ball et al, 2011).   Many of the interoperability challenges are related to the lack of standards in health information technology (Ball, et al, 2011).  The significant costs of various technical interfaces and the ever-evolving technology increases the complexity of situation (Hovenga, 2010).

Two Specific Examples of Interoperability Challenges

In the community hospital setting, there are several interoperability challenges that exist.  A clear example is seen with the oncology division and the need for collaborative care.  The hospital, community medical oncologists, and surgical oncologists all use different health information systems which makes it difficult to share information amongst the three stakeholders.  The lack of standardization causes some documents to have to be uploaded as scanned records, which is very laborious for the clinicians to glean information from or notice trends.  This cumbersome collaboration is evident during tumor boards as the clinicians discuss oncology patients and try to improve transparency of data with one another.  A second interoperability challenge is pulling data from physician or nursing notes.  Impeding access to data can lead to a decrease in quality and increase in cost or resources (Kuperman, et al, 2010).  The hospital’s research department uses tracks adverse events of study patients by reading nursing notes and physicians notes.  Since these notes do not contain standardized terminology or grades for specific events it is difficult to pull out the discrete data.  Having to weed through all the notes is very inefficient.

Strategies To Address Interoperability Challenges

Strategies are needed in order to improve interoperability amongst organizations.  Medical staff and hospital administration need to work together to determine the minimum data needs to be made available for clinicians to improve the shared data (Hovenga, 2010).  Adoption of standards to govern the electronic health records would be an appropriate strategy to improve interoperability challenges (Hovenga, 2010).  Prior to the purchase of new health information software and hardware components, IT administrations should strategize how all these tools with effectively interface together and support the needs of all the clinicians involved.  Collaboration amongst hospitals, local physician offices, and national agencies is an essential strategy to improving electronic health information interoperability (Kuperman, et al., 2010)

References

Ball, M.J., et al., (2011). Nursing informatics: Where technology and caring meet (4th ed.).

London, England: Springer-Verlag

Hovenga, E.J.S. (2010).  National standards in health informatics.  Studies in Health Technology

and Informatics, 151. 133-155.

Kuperman, et al., (2010). Developing data content specifications for the nationwide health

information network trial implementations. Journal of the American Medical Informatics

Association, 17(1).6-12.

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

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 3 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 3 Discussion

Discussion – Week 3Top of Form

Controlled Terminology and Standards

What are the advantages of standardizing coding terminologies? And what is the best way to achieve consistency for information systems?

As Dr. John Glaser notes in the “What Is Health Informatics?” media presentation (assigned in Week 1), a group of physicians may use

many different terms to describe one patient’s painful experience. This simple example can be extrapolated to guide your thinking about the obstacles that have arisen for information system development because of the varied and complex nature of health care.

In this week’s Discussion, you evaluate the interoperability and coding challenges encountered in today’s health care organizations.

To prepare:

  • Think about how controlled terminology and standards facilitate information sharing, for example, sharing data between an emergency care clinic and a pharmacy or between a primary care physician’s office and a specialist’s office.
  • Reflect on the national health IT agenda as presented in the Learning Resources.
  • Consider challenges health care providers are facing in light of the national health IT agenda related to sharing data across information systems and/or controlled terminology standards. What strategies could a health care organization use to address interoperability challenges? Conduct additional research as necessary to determine possible solutions.

By Day 3 post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

  • Evaluate the challenges that health care organizations may face when sharing data across systems
  • Using your professional experience and/or information gathered through research, provide at least two specific examples of interoperability challenges.
  • Propose at least two strategies a health care organization might implement to address interoperability challenges.

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 WaldenNURS 8210 Discussion Challenges that Health Care Organizations Face When Sharing Data Across Systems 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.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8210 Discussion Challenges that Health Care Organizations Face When Sharing Data Across Systems

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.

The availability of data across systems has undoubtably transitioned healthcare in the 20th century. Ease in availability, communication, patient access to records and uniformity are just a few benefit advances that informatics provides. Sharing data across systems can present challenges. While working in inpatient psychiatry I have personally witnessed patient concern for “this information in my chart.” As health care professionals, we are not immune to mental health and physical challenges. While treating members in our health care system for mental health related issues the fear of judgment and embarrassment is often identified. The concern of maintaining HIPPA with the ease and accessibility can contribute to patients feeling uneasy and potentially guarded in information recall.

Additional experiences I have encountered as a challenge specifically to interoperability communication is resistance to change. Resistance to change is not uncommon to encounter initially however with exposure and time the initial fears can be resolved. The uniformization of hand offs in care with intraoperative communication can be intimidating to individuals with a lower comfort level in computerized records and charting. Comfort levels in computer technology and programing can present a significant obstacle to interoperability in our health care system worldwide.
A strategical approach to accommodating the protentional fear during hand off reposts can be alleviated by the utilization of primary interoperative care. According to Dexter, et al., (2019) intraoperative care provides multiple opportunities for a different provider to assume responsibility for the patients between cases, thus avoiding an official face to face handoff altogether. Providing learning opportunities in skill labs, hands on training and resources readily available can also assist in identifying and managing challenges associated with intraoperative communication and advances throughout healthcare.

References

Basa, S. (2017). Intraoperative challenges and management strategies in orthognathic surgery. International Journal of Oral  & Maxillofacial Surgery46, 8.

Dexter F, Osman BM, & Epstein RH. (2019). Improving intraoperative handoffs for ambulatory anesthesia: challenges and solutions for the anesthesiologist. Local and Regional Anesthesia, volume 12, 37–46.

Grain, H., (2010) Clinical Technology. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery46, 8.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NURS_8210_Week3_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