NURS 5051/ NURS 6051 week 3 Discussion: Interaction Between Nurse Informaticists and Other Specialists

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or 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.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

(0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

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 sources.

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 Post: Timeliness
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
(0%) – 0 (0%)
(0%) – 0 (0%)
(0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are 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.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

(0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are 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.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

(0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Participation
(5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
(0%) – 0 (0%)
(0%) – 0 (0%)
(0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100

DON’T STRESS YOURSELF,  JUST CHAT US AT THE RIGHT CORNER BELOW.

My career as a nurse has allowed me to interact with individuals who hold different critical roles within my healthcare system. Nursing informaticists and technology specialists fill some of these roles. I must confess that my interactions with technology specialists and informatics nurses are not always some of my favorites. They are often filled with feelings of confusion and frustration. Often when I am communicating with a technology specialist during my work day, it is because something is not functioning properly at my job site. Sometimes it is software and sometimes it is hardware, but whatever it is, it is always frustrating. I call the IT department to see if they can fix my problem from behind their screen. Some of my frustration stems from that fact that our IT department is offsite so I never get to meet who I am speaking to. Also, I often have to hold because other people are on the line in front of me; meanwhile, I have patients who I need to take care of. Most times the IT specialist is able to fix my problem, but sometimes they have to elevate my issue to the “EPIC power team” to see if it can get solved. This process always takes more than a few minutes and can sometimes delay my patient care.

I think to improve upon some of these interactions, it would be nice to have a technology specialist on site to come assist us with our problems. Maybe they could carry a pager so they could come help us right away instead of troubleshooting an issue with me on the phone. I think I would feel less frustrated if someone actually came to help.

My interactions with informatics nurses have been different, yet somehow just as frustrating as working with offsite IT. My first interactions with informatics nurses occurred when my institution rolled out EPIC for the first time. We had all hands on deck from the EPIC support team. The nurses they sent in to help us were disengaged and far removed from the work we had to do on our unit. We felt like we had to beg for any help we could get and pull the informatics nurses away from their phones in order to be assisted. Recently, I have had to work with informatics nurses again to roll out a new EPIC program. The unit staff and I agreed that the nurses seemed too far removed from bedside nursing to understand some of the issues we were experiencing. They did not want to hear about our optimization requests because they just “wanted to give it time”. It is difficult to hear as a bedside nurse that a certain charting flow is being taken away because someone who does billing or chart audits wanted the program changed. Some of the nurses had cheerful attitudes which made the changes easier to take, but some of them had a “take it or leave it” kind of attitude that played into some of our frustration.

I think that Glassman (2017) made some great points on requirements of informatics nursing students. In order to be a quality informatics nurse, it’s important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the technology system you are using. Some of my frustration recently was that the informatics nurse helping me with our new system simply would not agree with me, or the surgeon I was with, that the old way of doing something might have been better or less cumbersome than the new way. We just needed our feelings to be heard, but she refused to do that for us. I also like that Glassman (2017) added that taking the nurses’ input into account is an important aspect to being a nurse informaticist. It is essential to us to know that we are being listened to by those designing and assisting with new programs.

Another way to avoid poor interactions between bedside staff and technology staff, is to make sure that from the beginning, each system is being designed in a user-centered way (McGonigle & Mastrian, 2017). By keeping the end-user in mind during the creation and roll-out of programs, minimal effort and maximum efficiency can be achieved (McGonigle & Mastrian, 2017). This is what everyone wants in the end. Keeping nurses involved in the creation of new programs makes them feel heard and letting them be a part of the decision making process ensures that the end result is what they want.

I believe that as EHR systems are around longer, more optimization opportunities will arise. We will be seeing more informatics nurses and technology specialists buzzing around our units. I think that in the future every nursing unit may have an informatics nurse hired on staff to help with unit specific issues. Hopefully they can be trained to assist with both physician and nursing EHR documentation. Tele-health and Tele-nursing will be a larger part of our healthcare picture (Babes, 2019). The constant exchange of information and use of EHR/video systems will require more assistance than is currently offered through our facility. The role of the informatics nurse is growing and the demand will continue to increase as well (Babes, 2019). Our hospitals will have to prepare for an increased need in human technologist resources.

References

Babes, V. (2019). Informatics in nursing. Current and future trends. Applied Medical Informatics, 41(1). Retrieved from  https://ami.info.umfcluj.ro/index.php/AMI/article/view/749

Glassman, K. S. (2017). Using data in nursing practice. American Nurse Today, 12(11), 45–47. Retrieved from https://www.americannursetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ant11-Data-1030.pdf

McGonigle, D., & Mastrian, K. G. (2017). Nursing informatics and the foundation of knowledge (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Open chat
WhatsApp chat +1 908-954-5454
We are online
Our papers are plagiarism-free, and our service is private and confidential. Do you need any writing help?