Walden University – NURS 5051/6051: Transforming Nursing and Healthcare Through Information Technology

In 2011, Mason General Hospital was named by Hospitals & Health Networks magazine as one of the “Most Wired” hospitals in the United States. What makes this particularly significant is that Mason General is a small, 25-bed, rural hospital in the state of Washington. It credits its success to nurse Eileen Branscome, director of clinical informatics. Under her leadership, the hospital adopted such innovations as visual smart boards where real-time patient information is always available. According to the magazine, those hospitals designated as “Most Wired” “show better outcomes in patient satisfaction, risk-adjusted mortality rates, and other key quality measures through the use of information technology (IT)” (Mason General Hospital and Family of Clinics, 2012).

Developments in information technology have enabled patients and health care providers to collaborate for quality improvement at an unprecedented level, and nurses have consistently been at the forefront of these efforts. This week you focus on the IOM report “To Err Is Human” and consider how health information technology has helped to address the issues of patient safety and quality health care.

References:

Weinstock, M., & Hoppszallern, S. (2011). Health care’s most wired 2011. Hospitals & Health Network Magazine, 85(7), 26–37.

Mason General Hospital and Family of Clinics. (2012). MGH&FC named most wired – Again! Retrieved from http://www.masongeneral.com/most_wired.html

Learning Objectives

Students will:

• Analyze the utilization of health information technology to address issues raised in the IOM report “To Err Is Human”
• Assess the role of informatics in improving health care safety

Get Assistance With Your Nursing Assignment

---

Learning Resources

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

American Nurses Association. (2015). Nursing informatics: Scope & standards of practice (2nd ed.). Silver Springs, MD: Author.

• “Introduction”This portion of the text introduces nursing informatics and outlines the functions of the scope and standards.

McGonigle, D., & Mastrian, K. G. (2015). Nursing informatics and the foundation of knowledge (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.

• • Chapter 1, “Nursing Science and the Foundation of Knowledge”This chapter defines nursing science and details its relation to nursing roles and nursing informatics. The chapter also serves as an introduction to the foundation of knowledge model used throughout the text.

• Chapter 2, “Introduction to Information, Information Science, and Information Systems”In this chapter, the authors highlight the importance of information systems. The authors specify the qualities that enable information systems to meet the needs of the health care industry.

Wakefield, M. K. (2008). The Quality Chasm series: Implications for nursing. In R. G. Hughes (Ed.), Patient safety and quality: An evidence-based handbook for nurses (Vol. 1, pp. 47–66). Rockville, MD: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.

• Pages 1–12These 12 pages highlight the issues raised by the Quality Chasm Series and examine their long-term implications for nursing. The text reviews external drivers of safety and quality, design principles for safe systems, and guidelines for health care redesign.

Cipriano, P. F., & Murphy, J. (2011). Nursing informatics. The future of nursing and health IT: The quality elixir. Nursing Economic$, 29(5), 282, 286–289.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

In this article, the authors focus on how nurses can use health information technology to help transform health care using the recommendations included in the 2010 Institute of Medicine report “The Future of Nursing, Leading Change, Advancing Health.” The author also discusses the 2011 National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care.

Plawecki, L. H., & Amrhein, D. W. (2009). Clearing the err. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 35(11), 26–29.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

This article presents a summary of the Institute of Medicine report “To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System.” The authors provide an overview of what has been accomplished in the decade following the IOM report, focusing in particular on health information technology.

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2012e). Introduction to nursing informatics. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 8 minutes.

In this video, Doris Fischer, Richard Rodriguez, Carina Perez, and Carmen Ferrell introduce the concept of nursing informatics. These individuals provide insight into how informatics is transforming the health care system by improving efficiency and quality of care.

Optional Resources

Hilts, M. E. (2010). Up from the basement. Health Management Technology, 31(9), 14–15.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

Institute of Medicine. (1999). To err is human: Building a safer health system. Retrieved from http://iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/1999/To-Err-is-Human/To%20Err%20is%20Human%201999%20%20report%20brief.pdf

Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J. M., & Donaldson, M.S. (Eds.). (2000). To err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington, D. C.: Institute of Medicine. Retrieved from the National Academies Press website: https://download.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9728

---

Discussion: The Effects of “To Err Is Human” in Nursing Practice

The 1999 landmark study titled “To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System” highlighted the unacceptably high incidence of U.S. medical errors and put forth recommendations to improve patient safety. Since its publication, the recommendations in “To Err Is Human’ have guided significant changes in nursing practice in the United States.

In this Discussion, you will review these recommendations and consider the role of health information technology in helping address concerns presented in the report.

To prepare:

• • Review the summary of “To Err Is Human” presented in the Plawecki and Amrhein article found in this week’s Learning Resources.
  • Consider the following statement:

“The most significant barrier to improving patient safety identified in “To Err Is Human” is a “lack of awareness of the extent to which errors occur daily in all health care settings and organizations (Wakefield, 2008).”

• Review “The Quality Chasm Series: Implications for Nursing” focusing on Table 3: “Simple Rules for the 21st Century Health Care System.” Consider your current organization or one with which you are familiar. Reflect on one of the rules where the “current rule” is still in operation in the organization and consider another instance in which the organization has effectively transitioned to the new rule.

Name: Transforming Nursing & Healthcare Through Technology Discussion Rubric

		Excellent 90–100	Good 80–89	Fair 70–79	Poor 0–69
Main Posting: Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.		40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources.	35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references.	31 (31%) – 34 (34%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references.	0 (0%) – 30 (30%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references.
Main Posting: Writing		6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Posting: Timely and full participation		9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.		9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
First Response: Writing		6 (6%) – 6 (6%) is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
First Response: Timely and full participation		5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.	3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date.	0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.		9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Second Response: Writing		6 (6%) – 6 (6%) is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response: Timely and full participation		5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.	3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date.	0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100