APA Format, No plagiarism, DB Response, follow grading rubric please

Instruction for DB response: Choose and post a scholarly response to two peer postings. Student’s response to peer

ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER NOW

postings must be on a different question than the question they themselves answered. Minimum 125 word count excluding references in each response to peer posting. Each response should be supported by two references. References should be peer-reviewed, scholarly and professional. References should not be older than 5 years. Responses in the forum should be in APA format. Summer 2018 Forum Grading Rubric NURS 4345 Healthcare Information Technology Forum Grading Rubric Criteria Expert Proficient Content Content in the posting is accurate, relevant to the assigned question, and demonstrates student learning related to module content (Minimum word count of 250 words excluding references Content is accurate, relevant and topic discussed in-depth. Content demonstrates student learning related to module content within minimum word count Content is accurate, relevant to the topic and demonstrates student learning within minimum word count Points References related to instructor question Response is supported by student conducted research. Two references required. References should be peer reviewed, scholarly and professional. References should not be older than 5 years. Points Engagement Response is relevant to peer posting(s). Response demonstrates learning from the peers posting. Student must respond to two peer postings on a different question than the question they themselves answered. Minimum of 125 words for each of the two 30 Competent Content is accurate, and relevant with minimal discussion of the topic as it relates to the module content within minimum word count Substantial Areas for Improvement Unsatisfactory Content is not accurate OR Content is not relevant to the topic OR Student does not integrate the module content into the topic. OR Does not meet minimum word count. 20 Assignment not posted 27 24 Utilized more than the assigned number of references (2) in response Utilized the assigned number of references (2) in response References are peerreviewed, professional, scholarly and not older than five years. Requirement for two references was not met as evidenced by: +One reference cited OR +References were not peerreviewed, professional or scholarly OR +Reference(s) outdated Did not include references References are peer reviewed, professional, scholarly and not older than five years. Utilized assigned number of references (2) in response but reference requirements were not met as evidenced by the following: one reference was not peerreviewed, professional or scholarly 0 10 Response is relevant to two or more peer postings on different questions than they themselves answered. Response to peers is thoughtful, reflective, and respectful. Integrates learning from peers posting to module content within minimum word count 9 Response is relevant to one student posting on a different question than the question they themselves answered and responding to one peer posting on the same question they themselves answered. Integrates learning from peers posting to module content within minimum word count 8 Requirement for engagement was not met as evidenced by: +Response adds minimal information or knowledge to two peer postings OR +One response to peer posting is on the same question they themselves answered OR Response within minimum word count 7 Requirement for engagement was not met as evidenced by: +Response to two peer postings paraphrases what peer has said without adding additional information or knowledge OR +Responded to only one peer posting OR 0 Did not post response to student posting OR Reply is clearly disrespectful student peer posts excluding references Points References related to response to student posting Response is supported by student conducted research. Two references are required for each response to the peer postings. References should be scholarly and professional. References should not be older than 5 years. 20 Utilized more than the assigned number of references (2) in each response Points Scholarly Presentation Writing style allows for clear communication of thoughts through logical presentation demonstrating effective preparation and critical thinking. 10 Thoughts are organized, succinct and demonstrate critical thinking without errors in spelling, grammar, sentence structure or punctuation. 9 Thoughts are organized demonstrating critical thinking OR One error in spelling, grammar, sentence structure or punctuation 8 Thoughts are organized OR Two errors in spelling, grammar, sentence structure or punctuation 7 Thoughts show minimal organization and lack of critical thinking OR Three errors in spelling, grammar, sentence structure or punctuation 15 APA formatting followed 12 One APA error 10 Two APA errors 8 Three APA errors 12 10 Writing style demonstrates correct spelling, grammar, sentence structure and punctuation. Points APA Style Proper APA formatting should be followed Points Grade References are peer reviewed, professional, scholarly and not older than five years. 15 18 Utilized the assigned number of references (2) in each response References are peerreviewed, professional, scholarly and not older than five years. 15 Utilized assigned number of references (2) in each response but reference requirements were not met as evidenced by the following: +One or two references were not peer- reviewed, professional or scholarly +Did not meet minimum word count for each student peer posting. 13 Requirement for two references for each response were not met as evidenced by: +One reference cited in each response OR +Three or four references were not peer-reviewed, professional or scholarly OR +Reference(s) outdated 8 0 Did not utilize references 0 No posting OR Thoughts show no logical organization or critical thinking OR Four or more errors in spelling, grammar, sentence structure or punctuation 0 Four or more APA errors 0 PLAGIARISM: Plagiarism is considered cheating and is a violation of academic integrity as outlined in the Student Handbook. Any student who plagiarizes any portion of the assignment may receive a grade of zero on the assignment. LATE ASSIGNMENTS: Unless prior faculty notification and negotiation of an extended deadline, ten (10) points will be deducted per day if submitted late. Assignment will not be accepted if submitted more than 3 days late and assigned grade will be 0 (zero). Revised 7/24/2013;12/29/2014;11/30/2016cs; 03/2017; 06/2017 cs/rp Kerrysmil please respond to the following: Many patient care errors, such as giving the wrong medication to the wrong patient or ordering the incorrect medication because of illegible physician handwriting have brought about an increase in health information technology in the form of clinical decision support systems or CDSS. CDSS is defined as “interactive computer programs designed to assist health professionals with decision-making tasks by mimicking the inductive or deductive reasoning of a health expert” (Yoder-Wise, 2015, p 192). Designed as a double check, they can prompt a physician when ordering a medication that is contraindicated or listed as an allergy, or as a stop prompt when a nurse is going to give a beta-blocker when a patient’s heart rate is 45. Before computerized charting and ordering systems, physicians would give handwritten orders. According to the Patient Safety Network, 90% of medication errors were caused by handwritten orders (Patient Safety Network, 2017). This would cause medication errors or wrong procedures or tests to be performed when the nurse couldn’t read the physician’s handwriting. In addition to this, handwriting orders were time-consuming, and some orders could be left out. With the development and improvement of computerized provider order entry (CPOE), these problems are diverted. Order sets have been developed that can be specific to admission, procedure ordered, and transfer of patients. The physicians simply must check the boxes, assure that the time is correct for medications and tests, and the order goes through. Prompts are in place in case a contraindicated medication or allergy is ordered. A study performed in 2013 showed that there was a 48% decrease in errors when a CPOE was used versus the handwritten tool or order set (Patient Safety Network, 2017). Medication errors have been a major culprit of patient adverse events. Before computer systems, medications were checked off a daily printout. There wasn’t a hard stop if a patient was inadvertently given a wrong medication. Now, with the use of the Electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR), medication errors are preventable. First, by scanning the patient’s armband, nurses and therapists can be assured that the medication is being given to the correct patient. Then, by scanning the medication, the dose that is ordered is confirmed and which route identified. Hard stops include the wrong patient, medication not ordered, allergies, incorrect times. Blood pressure and heart ratecontrolling medications will prompt for the current blood pressure and heart rate which is a doublecheck for the nurse to make sure that the medications are given within the proper parameters. IV pumps have a software database installed with the medications, dosages, and calculations that are allowed for each facility. Providing that the nurse programs in the correct protocol for the medication, for example, the ACS protocol for Heparin gtt instead of the DVT/PE protocol, the infusions are calculated for each specific medication. Alerts for two nurse confirmation, such as insulin infusions, and set guardrails for each infusion provide for medication administration safety. Some pumps can send a notification to the pharmacy for a request of a medication refill. In addition, a total infusion of a particular medication can be reviewed as well. These electronic tools are only effective if used properly. For example, if we give a medication before scanning, we could administer the wrong medication or wrong dose. This isn’t to say that the technology is without mistakes, but it is our responsibility as nurses to find and point out the errors promptly to get them corrected before an incident happens. References Patient Safety Network. (2017, June). Computerized Provider Order Entry | AHRQ Patient Safety Network. Retrieved from https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primers/primer/6/computerized-provider-order-entry Yoder-Wise, P. S. (2015). Leading and managing in nursing (6th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier-Mosby. QUESTION 1. Identify three ways to improve the safety, efficacy and efficiency of nursing care using healthcare information technology. Include at least one rationale for each area identified. Please Respond to the following: The adoption of Electronic Health Records increased exponentially after the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act passed in 2009 (Furukawa, Spector, Limcangco, Encinosa, & Rhona Limcangco 2017). Since then, Health Information Technology (HIT) has made progress in the Healthcare Industry. Use of HIT was introduced with the idea of improving safety, efficacy and efficiency. Today we can improve patient safety by using HIT. A study conducted by Furukawa et al. indicates that “the occurrence of in-hospital ADEs [adverse drug events] declined significantly from 2010 to 2013, a decline of 22%. Hospital adoption of medication-related MU [Meaningful Use] capabilities was associated with 11% lower odds of ADEs occurring, but the effects did not vary by experience with MU. Interoperability capability was associated with 19% lower odds of ADEs occurring. Greater exposure to MU capabilities explained about one-fifth of the observed reduction in ADEs “(2017, p.733). Although most of these measures are already in place in many institutions, there is always room for improvement. We can positively impact care by following the next three recommendations: Chart as accurately as possible, in real time. “As nurses document patient care, acuity is calculated based on the whole patient, including activities of daily living; physical, psychosocial, educational, and perceived needs; and family support” (Garcia & Nell, 2013, p.18). Staffing ratios and allocations are then calculated based on acuity which reflects our charts. Consequently, if our charting is accurate we can allow a more efficient scheduling. Be part of the ongoing changes that represent our profession and adapt. “This is the route to successful, sustainable innovation. Nurses must address the leadership challenge of how to respond to and accelerate adoption of technologies to support practice. We need nurse leaders who see technologies as promising solutions, not problems, and are able to integrate technology into their vision for meeting practice needs” (Cipriano & Hamer, 2013, p. 4). When we change our mind set and embrace the change, we can become more efficient in our practice by better utilizing the tools that are given to us. Create a culture of safety and utilize the tools your hospital has in place. “Perhaps the most exciting example of effective leveraging of technology to improve care is our Medical Early Warning System and Pediatric Early Warning System (MEWS/PEWS)…Using information from the EHR, MEWS/PEWS identifies the most critically ill and decompensating patients and assigns each one a score. Clinicians and the RRT use the information to intervene proactively and escalate care” (Zimmermann, 2013, p. 14). This is one example of the many tools we have. These tools and initiatives are in place to prevent errors, improve patient safety and outcomes We must utilize these tools and not see them as one more item on our check list to complete. Sometimes we can get caught up in this form of thinking and forget about the big picture! In conclusion, HIT has given us many resources that when utilized correctly can improve safety, efficacy, and efficiency of the care we provide. By adapting and being part of the change happening in our healthcare system we can ensure these tools are being properly used and our patients can get the care that we strive to provide. References Cipriano, P. F., & Hamer, S. (2013). Enabling the ordinary: More time to care. American Nurse Today, 8(11), SR2-4. Furukawa, M. F., Spector, W. D., Limcangco, M. R., Encinosa, W. E., & Rhona Limcangco, M. (2017). Meaningful use of health information technology and declines in in-hospital adverse drug events. Journal Of The American Medical Informatics Association, 24(4), 729-736. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocw183 Garcia, A. & Nell, K. (2013). Using technology to make evidence-based staffing assignments. American Nurse Today, 8(11), SR18-19. Zimmermann, D. (2013). A Case Study: Using Technology to Build a Culture of Safety. American Nurse Today, 8(11), SR14-15.
Purchase answer to see full attachment