coursework-banner

NURS 8210 Providing quality services and striving for excellence is the aim of health organizations and providers across the world

NURS 8210 Providing quality services and striving for excellence is the aim of health organizations and providers across the world

NURS 8210 Providing quality services and striving for excellence is the aim of health organizations and providers across the world

Providing quality services and striving for excellence is the aim of health organizations and providers across the world. The ability of health organizations to achieve their desired service quality and excellence depends largely on their focus on quality indicators in health. Quality indicators guide health organizations and providers on their level of achieving the set targets in providing care that meets the actual and potential needs of their clients. Several quality indicators influence the provision of care in health organizations (Mashouri et al., 2020). The top two quality indicators that relate to patient care in our institution are patient falls and pressure ulcers. Patient falls predispose patients to unintended consequences in healthcare that include injury, increased cost of care and extended hospital stay. On the other hand, an incident pressure ulcer in hospitalized patients implies that the quality of care given in the organization is low. Therefore, health organizations seek to ensure that the care that is given aim at achieving the set targets of local, state and regional quality indicators in health.

Cognizant of  the role that training plays when it comes to improving a nurse’s competencies in EBP and thus empowering them to contribute to the development of EBP, here are certain strategies that can be undertaken from both an organizational level, to the larger professional level. At the organizational level, the organization can organize for opportunities where their nurses can get trained on evidence based practice. On the greater professional levels, professional bodies such as the ANA and the ANCC have developed certification program for nurses. By including components of evidence based practice  in the certification exams, this ensures that nurses will prepare and apprise themselves on EBP and thus, in order to earn the certification, they will have to be competent in EBP. Alternatively, the institutions can include a whole different certification for EBP, where nurses will specifically be trained on EBP, tested on the same and thus, their competency will be proven by their certification. This will ultimately improve their ability to participate in the development and implementation of EBP.

Early quality improvement theories and philosophies had a significant influence on the development of quality indicators. One of the early movement that had a significant impact on the development of the quality indicators is the evidence-based practice movement. The rise in the need for the provision of nursing care with a focus on quality indicators increased the need for the development of the indicators. The evidence-based practice movement ensured that data on nursing sensitive indicators guide the adoption of interventions of care in health organizations. Safety movements in health also influenced the development of the quality indicators in health. The increased focus on the provision of high quality care that promoted the realization of the safety outcomes in care also ensured that health organizations and providers utilized care interventions that minimize harm (Seaton et al., 2020). The focus on safety also promoted the consideration of the factors that influence patient safety and care, hence, the rise of sensitive quality indicators in health.

References

Mashouri, P., Taati, B., Quirt, H., & Iaboni, A. (2020). Quality Indicators as Predictors of Future Inspection Performance in Ontario Nursing Homes. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 21(6), 793-798.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2019.09.007

Seaton, P. C. J., Cant, R. P., & Trip, H. T. (2020). Quality indicators for a community-based wound care centre: An integrative review. International Wound Journal, 17(3), 587–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13308

Health organizations utilize different types of health information to make their strategic decisions. Health organizations obtain health information from different sources, which are combined to provide enhanced insights into organizational strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities that should be explored for operational excellence and service quality (Salomi & Claro, 2020). The information needs in our organization however differs significantly. For example, the information needs for the nurses and physicians aim at providing them with insights into the safety and quality of care that is given to the patients. Physicians and nurses utilize health-related data to determine whether they offer value-based care or not. The health information for the senior management may however differ from those of the nurses and physicians. For example, senior management requires data about the effectiveness of operations management in the organization and effectiveness of the adopted interventions.

The different needs of information in the organization have a number of implications to our organization. Firstly, the organization should adopt health information system that enables the successful sharing of the information at different levels of the organization. The system should provide the employees at different levels of the organization with the understanding of the organizational needs and strategies that should be embraced. The other implication is the need for training healthcare providers on interpreting and using the different forms of data that relate to their practice (Pomffyova, 2018). The healthcare providers should be trained to facilitate the meaningful use of health information.

The flow of information across HIT systems in my organization supports evidence-based practice. The flow of information enables the identification of issues that affect the realization of the desired organizational goals and objectives. For example, the flow of information enables the identification of issues in resource utilization and rates of safety or adverse events in the organization (Pomffyova, 2018). As a result, strategic decisions are made with the aim of improving the performance and competitiveness of the organization in the identified areas of weaknesses by focusing on the opportunities in service provision in the organization.

References

Pomffyova, M. (2018). Management of Information Systems. BoD – Books on Demand.

Salomi, M. J. A., & Claro, P. B. (2020). Adopting Healthcare Information Exchange among Organizations, Regions, and Hospital Systems toward Quality, Sustainability, and Effectiveness. Technology and Investment, 11(03), 58. https://doi.org/10.4236/ti.2020.113005

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 2 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 2 Discussion

Discussion – Week 2 Top of FormInformation Architecture

How do you use health information technology in your daily work activities? Does the CNO in your organization use the same HIT as

the nurses at the bedside? What about those individuals who work in admissions? In order to develop an information system that can facilitate the ability to track, share, and analyze patient data, an organization has to take into account the differing needs or views of various departments.

In this Discussion, you consider the differing viewpoints of the professionals within your organization. Imagine what your colleagues’ needs might be and how they might use a HIT system to access and share information to promote evidence-based care. What are the similarities and differences in how this technology would be used by physicians, lab techs, administrators, nurses, informaticians, and others?

To prepare:

  • Review this week’s media presentation, focusing on how the VA’s VistA system demonstrates data flow across an organization.
  • Reflect on your organization’s information architecture and the various information needs of different groups within your work setting. What constraints has your organization faced with implementing health information technology systems that meet everyone’s needs? Consider speaking with your colleagues from different areas about this topic.
  • Ask yourself: How does the flow of data across my organization support, or inhibit, evidence-based practice?

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

  • Differentiate the information needs within your organization. For example, how might the needs of an administrator differ from the needs of a physician or lab tech?
  • Explain the impact of these different needs on the implementation of HIT in your present organization.
  • Evaluate how the flow of information across HIT systems within your organization supports or inhibits evidence-based practice.

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 Providing quality services and striving for excellence is the aim of health organizations and providers across the world 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 Providing quality services and striving for excellence is the aim of health organizations and providers across the world

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.

Content

Name: NURS_8210_Week2_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