coursework-banner

NURS 8210 Discussion health information technology (HIT) frameworks

NURS 8210 Discussion health information technology (HIT) frameworks

NURS 8210 Discussion health information technology (HIT) frameworks

Today, the health care systems are reportedly encountering problems in the delivery of comprehensive and suitable clinical documentation that can satisfy vital care elements such as quality, clinical, and cost needs (Kostkova et al., 2016). Fundamentally, through health information technology (HIT) frameworks, it is possible to devise various data innovations to facilitate clinical documentation based on specialty. For instance, health care settings tend to seek verified electronic health records (EHRs) to attain vital meaningful requirements. Mostly, health care organizations rely on a vendor capable of providing best of breed EHR to facilitate provision of programs that are centered on the particular needs of the setting (Wager, Lee & Glaser, 2017). In a nutshell, the application of numerous EHRs is crucial in ensuring the delivery of patient-centered needs. However, physicians tend to emphasize mostly on patients’ needs at the expense of accomplishing the documentation precisely. However, the utilization of natural language processing (NLP) and computer-assisted coding (CAC) can potentially integrate the effort by stakeholders such as physicians, coders, and clinical documentation improvement specialists (CDIS) to complete and make the records clear, thus, fostering the attainment of quality, clinical, and financial needs.

The adoption of the International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification and Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-CM/PCS) in the year 2015 facilitated increment in quantity of codes for patient diagnosis. Essentially, codes are proven to play vital roles in clinical documentation (Watzlaf, Alkarwi, Meyers & Sheridan, 2015). Consequently, due to the important roles of codes and the dynamic nature of medical services, the implementation of CAC programming arrangements is necessitated. The CAC is also integrated with EHR to ensure significant benefits for CDIS and coders (Amoia et al., 2018). The aim of this paper, therefore, is to describe the implementation of HIT in the medical services association, the inventive facets of the HIT system, and how the system support changes in the health care system.

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 andadditional 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 11 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 11 Discussion

Discussion – Week 11

As a nurse practicing in the age of technology, it is important for you to discriminate between HIT system evaluation and other forms of evaluation. As a doctorally prepared nurse, you may have the opportunity to become involved with the HIT system evaluation process. How can you guide your practice setting to meaningfully evaluate HIT systems? What strategies might you employ to assess the outcomes and effectiveness of a HIT system?

To prepare:

  • Reflect on the information presented in the Learning Resources, focusing on the various strategies used to evaluate the effectiveness of a health information system.
  • Consider the strategies you use to evaluate other health care issues. How are those strategies similar or dissimilar to those used for evaluating a health information system?

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

  • Differentiate the process of evaluating health information technology systems from other types of evaluation in health care. What specific strategies might you employ for an information system evaluation? What factors might you examine to judge the system’s effectiveness?
  • Assess the main challenges of designing a successful information system evaluation.

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 gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.NURS 8210 Discussion health information technology (HIT) frameworks

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 health information technology (HIT) frameworks

With the increased implementation and integration of information technology (IT) within health care systems it is important to continually assess and evaluate the outcomes of these various systems. Evaluating information technology applications allows for decision makers to gain knowledge regarding the functioning of the IT-based system within the organization (Rahimi & Vimarlund, 2007). Within the literature, it is apparent that various methods to IT system assessment are present and vary according to the application in use. For example, in assessment of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) it is recommended to utilize randomized controlled clinical trials (RCCT) to gain further insight regarding effectiveness (Rahimi & Vimarlund, 2007). Further discussion regarding computer-based patient record systems, such as electronic medical records (EMRs), recommend utilizing a systematic survey to assess the impact on medical practice, quality of care, and user as well as patient satisfaction (Rahimi & Vimarlund, 2007). It is important to involve all stakeholders within evaluation to ensure outcomes are being met and that strategies are effective (American Nurses Association, 2008).

In comparison to other methods of assessment within healthcare, IT assessment involves the inclusion of all stakeholders including patients, staff, and administration. During assessment, various methods of evaluation can be utilized as previously discussed. With regards to evaluation, this should be conducted in a systematic and ongoing matter (American Nurses Association, 2008). As health information technology is continually evolving, evaluation should continue as well to ensure that implementation and technology is effective. Effective technology should include user acceptance, as well as satisfaction of patients which refers to increased or improved quality of care. Furthermore, financial effects should be within budget and not include additional costs (Nahm et al. 2007; Rahimi & Vimarlund, 2007). A barrier to designing a successful evaluation for IT is that a variety of applications may be required dependent upon the technology. Nahm et al. (2007) found that randomized control led trials, pre and post test studies, time and motion studies, surveys and user testing were frequently utilized in outcome assessment.

References

American Nurses Association. (2008). Nursing informatics: Scope and standards of practice.

Silver Spring, MD: Author.

Nahm, E., Vaydia, V., Ho, D., Scharf, B., & Seagull, J. (2007). Outcomes assessment of clinical

information system implementation: A practical guide, Nursing Outlook, 55 (6), 282-288.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2007.09.003.

Rahimi, B., & Vimarlund, V. (2007). Methods to evaluate health information systems in

healthcare settings: A literature review. Journal of Medical Systems, 31(5), 397-432.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10916-007-9082-z

Content

Name: NURS_8210_Week11_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