New technology—and the application of existing technology—only appears in healthcare settings after careful and significant research. The stakes are high, and new clinical systems need to offer evidence of positive impact on outcomes or efficiencies.
Nurse informaticists and healthcare leaders formulate clinical system strategies. As these strategies are often based on technology trends, informaticists and others have then benefited from consulting existing research to inform their thinking.
In this Assignment, you will review existing research focused on the application of clinical systems. After reviewing, you will summarize your findings.
To Prepare:
The Assignment: (4-5 pages)
In a 4- to 5-page paper, synthesize the peer-reviewed research you reviewed. Be sure to address the following:
RESOURCES:
https://www.healthit.gov/faq/what-electronic-health-record-ehr
https://www.himss.org/electronic-health-records
https://class.waldenu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/USW1/202050_27/MS_NURS/NURS_5051_WC/artifacts/USW1_NURS_5051_Dykes.pdf
Rao-Gupta, S., Kruger, D. Leak, L. D., Tieman, L. A., & Manworren, R. C. B. (2018). Leveraging interactive patient care technology to Improve pain management engagement. Pain Management Nursing, 19(3), 212–221. doi:10.1016/j.pmn.2017.11.002
Skiba, D. (2017). Evaluation tools to appraise social media and mobile applications. Informatics, 4(3), 32–40. doi:10.3390/informatics4030032
In a 4- to 5-page paper, synthesize the peer-reviewed research you reviewed. Be sure to address the following:· Properly identify 5 peer-reviewed articles selected.· Summarize each study, explaining the improvement to outcomes, efficiencies, and lessons learned from the application of the clinical system each peer-reviewed article described. Be specific and provide examples.–
Excellent 77 (77%) – 85 (85%)
The responses accurately and clearly identify 5 peer-reviewed research articles for the Assignment. The responses accurately and thoroughly summarize in detail each study reviewed, explaining in detail the improvement to outcomes, efficiencies, and lessons learned from the application of the clinical system each peer-reviewed article described.
Specific, accurate, and detailed examples are provided which fully support the responses.
Good 68 (68%) – 76 (76%)
The responses identify 5 peer-reviewed research articles for the Assignment. The responses summarize each study reviewed, explaining the improvement to outcomes, efficiencies, and lessons learned from the application of the clinical system each peer-reviewed article described.
Accurate examples are provided which support the responses provided.
Fair 60 (60%) – 67 (67%)
The responses vaguely or inaccurately identify 5 or less peer-reviewed articles for the Assignment. The responses summarize each study reviewed, explaining the improvement to outcomes, efficiencies, and lessons learned from the application of the clinical system each peer-reviewed article described that is vague or inaccurate.
Examples provided to support the responses are vague or inaccurate.
Poor 0 (0%) – 59 (59%)
The responses vaguely and inaccurately identify less than 5 peer-reviewed articles for the Assignment, or are missing. The responses vaguely and inaccurately summarize each study reviewed, explaining the improvement to outcomes, efficiencies, and lessons learned from the application of the clinical system each peer-reviewed article described, or are missing.