NURS 8210 Discussion Consumer health informatics

Introduction

Consumer health informatics refers to an area of health informatics which reduces a gap between health care resources and patients.

Technology has become an indispensable part of health practice, and health care providers apply technology diversely to enhance health outcomes. Digitizing patients’ data is among the most impacting areas of technology in health practice. In many instances, electronic medical records (EMRs) and electronic health records (EHRs) are used interchangeably despite serving different purposes. This paper compares EMRs and EHRs, discusses the importance of interoperability, and explains how EMRs and EHRs improve quality and access to care.

EMRs vs. EHRs

Understanding the difference between EHRs and EMRs is vital for the success of technology incorporation in health practice. From a practice viewpoint, both terms represent digital records of patients’ health information. However, as Katz (2018) posited, EMRs are not broad since they are the digital version of a patient’s chart. As a result, EMRs have patients’ information such as treatment history from one practice area. Doctors rarely share such information. EHRs contain more information; they are patients’ records from various health care providers. Balestra (2017) added that, unlike EMRs, EHRs provide a more holistic view of a patient’s health. Multiple health care providers usually share data in EHRs.

Synthesizing my Knowledge with Consumer Health Literacy as Evidenced in Context

Consumer health literacy is crucial part of improving effectiveness and quality of consumer’s health care, consumer’s purchasing decisions and strengthening the management of their health. In my practice setting, I evidenced that consumer health literacy is key to quality care and it is related with three objectives of quality improvement, that is; balanced treatment, safety or privacy and patient-centred care (Lewis, 2007). Consumers with low health literacy fail to navigate health care systems to obtain the needed medications, compared to consumers with high health literacy. Consumers with low health literacy may also incur challenges in enrolling to insurance programmes. In my practice setting, I noticed that many consumers were unable to understand whether they were legible to free care or not. Therefore, I urge consumers to enrol in health care systems to improve their health literacy.

Formulating Strategies to Help Patients in the Application of Web-Based Health Information

One of the strategy that help patients in applying web-based health information is incorporation of interaction. In this strategy, both patients and health care providers are incorporated in a web-based technological system to access medical services. Interaction between patients and medical workers will help medical workers to educate patients about the application of web-based health information (Keselman et al., 2008). An organization can centralize patients’ services to ensure that patients are able to access web-based health information at a single point and for long term. Clinicians may offer timely medical consultations to the patients. This will help patients to understand various uses of web-based health information in health care.

Conclusion

From the above discussion, we can conclude that consumer health literacy play key roles in enhancing quality and improved health care services. Therefore, organizations should embrace in implementing health programs to educate consumers about health care practice. We have also noted the strategies which may be applied to help patients use web-based health information.

References

Keselman, A., Logan, R., Arnott Smith, C., Leroy, G., & Zeng-Treitler, Q. (2008). Developing informatics tools and strategies for consumer-centered health communication. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(4), 473-483.

Lewis, D. (2007). Evolution of consumer health informatics [Editorial]. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 25(6), 316.

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 8 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 8 Discussion

Discussion – Week 8

Collapse

Top of Form

Consumer Health Information

“Better Information. Better Health.” —WebMD

“Trusted Health Information for You.” —MedlinePlus

Popular health information websites (such as the ones noted above) have consumers logging on to acquire health information. Yet, research shows that many of today’s consumers need assistance searching for information as well as understanding and applying it. Lack of technological expertise, low levels of health literacy, and an inability to distinguish relevant facts are just some of the documented challenges.

As you work through this Discussion, keep in mind that health literacy does not merely imply access to information, but also the capacity to process that information to make informed decisions. In this Discussion, be sure to conceptualize nursing’s roles and responsibilities in assisting patients with web-based information.

References:
WebMD. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.webmd.com/

MedlinePlus. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/

To prepare:

With the information from the Learning Resources in mind, consider the amount and types of health information available to consumers online.
Reflect on the patients you have encountered in your practice, and consider their health literacy and use of online information.
Evaluate strategies you could use to educate and assist your patients to appropriately use health information found on the web.

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

Synthesize your previous experiences with consumer health literacy in your practice setting.
Formulate strategies that you could use to assist patients in interpreting and applying online health information going forward. Include strategies for those patients that overuse medical websites or regularly misinterpret medical information found online.

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.

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 NURS 8210 Discussion Consumer health informatics 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.

Click on the Reply button below to post your response.

Rubric Detail

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

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8210 Discussion Consumer health informatics

Only 12% of Americans possess adequate health literacy skills. Among the populations cited with the lowest health literacy are those who experience chronic health conditions (Armstrong-Heimsoth et. al., (2017). Improving health literacy is a national health priority, and there is a growing body of literature linking health literacy to health care costs, utilization, and outcomes (Hardie, N. et. al., (2011).

Originally, the interest in health literacy was mainly focused on health care services, and had a limited focus on the ability to handle words and numbers in a medical context (Originally, the interest in health literacy was mainly focused on health care services, and had a limited focus on the ability to handle words and numbers in a medical context (Van den Broucke, S. (2014). Yet over the years the concept gradually expanded in meaning to also account for more complex and interconnected abilities, such as reading and acting upon written health information, communicating needs to health professionals, and understanding health instructions (Van den Broucke, S. (2014).

More recently, the concept of health literacy has also found its way into public health. So, in addition to the already significant body of literature linking low health literacy to decreased medication adherence, poor knowledge of the disease, poor adherence to self-care management, and poor treatment outcomes, there is now an increasing number of studies attesting to the fact that people with lower health literacy are also less likely to engage in health-promoting behaviors, to participate in screening programs or to use preventive services (Van den Broucke, S. (2014).

At the same time, the meaning of the concept itself continues to expand and now includes information seeking, decision making, problem-solving, critical thinking, and communication, along with a multitude of social, personal, and cognitive skills that are imperative to function in the health system (Van den Broucke, S. (2014). More recently, the concept of health literacy has also found its way into public health.

So, in addition to the already significant body of literature linking low health literacy to decreased medication adherence, poor knowledge of the disease, poor adherence to self-care management, and poor treatment outcomes, there is now an increasing number of studies attesting to the fact that people with lower health literacy are also less likely to engage in health-promoting behaviors, to participate in screening programs or to use preventive services. At the same time, the meaning of the concept itself continues to expand and now includes information seeking, decision making, problem-solving, critical thinking, and communication, along with a multitude of social, personal, and cognitive skills that are imperative to function in the health system (Van den Broucke, S. (2014).

Nurses face many challenges in caring for diverse populations when cultural and literacy barriers are present. Patients have the right to health information to assist in making informed decisions (Rajah, R.et. al., (2018). Quality healthcare goals include patient-centered and equitable care for diverse populations. According to NAM, the goal for improving healthcare is to make care equitable regardless of personal characteristics, including ethnicity, geographic location, gender, or socioeconomic status (Rajah, R.et. al., (2018).

References;

Armstrong-Heimsoth, A., Johnson, M. L., McCulley, A., Basinger, M., Maki, K., & Davison, D. (2017). Good Googling: a consumer health literacy program empowering parents to find quality health information online. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet, 21(2), 111-124.

Hardie, N. A., Kyanko, K., Busch, S., LoSasso, A. T., & Levin, R. A. (2011). Health literacy and health care spending and utilization in a consumer-driven healthplan. Journal of Health Communication, 16(sup3), 308-321.

Rajah, R., Ahmad Hassali, M. A., Jou, L. C., & Murugiah, M. K. (2018). The perspective of healthcare providers and patients on health literacy: a systematic review of the quantitative and qualitative studies. Perspectives in public health, 138(2), 122-132.

Van den Broucke, S. (2014). Health literacy: a critical concept for public health.

Content

Name: NURS_8210_Week8_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

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