Discussion: Interaction Between Nurse Informaticists and Other Specialists

Discussion: Interaction Between Nurse Informaticists and Other Specialists
Nature offers many examples of specialization and collaboration. Ant colonies and bee hives are but two examples of nature’s sophisticated organizations. Each thrives because their members specialize by tasks, divide labor, and collaborate to ensure food, safety, and general well-being of the colony or hive.
Of course, humans don’t fare too badly in this regard either. And healthcare is a great example. As specialists in the collection, access, and application of data, nurse informaticists collaborate with specialists on a regular basis to ensure that appropriate data is available to make decisions and take actions to ensure the general well-being of patients.
In this Discussion, you will reflect on your own observations of and/or experiences with informaticist collaboration. You will also propose strategies for how these collaborative experiences might be improved.
To Prepare:
Review the Resources and reflect on the evolution of nursing informatics from a science to a nursing specialty.
Consider your experiences with nurse Informaticists or technology specialists within your healthcare organization.
By Day 3 of Week 3
Post a description of experiences or observations about how nurse informaticists and/or data or technology specialists interact with other professionals within your healthcare organization. Suggest at least one strategy on how these interactions might be improved. Be specific and provide examples. Then, explain the impact you believe the continued evolution of nursing informatics as a specialty and/or the continued emergence of new technologies might have on professional interactions.
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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE !!
Solution
Nurse Informaticists: Interaction with Other Specialists in Healthcare Organizations
The field and specialty of nursing informatics is a relatively new one compared with other nursing specialties. It is only in 1999 that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) produced a report with a recommendation that technology can be the solution to rampant human error in healthcare. The report was aptly titled To Err Is Human (Palatnik, 2016).
Since then, legislation has been enacted that obliges every healthcare setting to have an electronic health record (EHR) system. Nurse informaticists are the custodians of the data stored in these systems and are responsible for retrieving data as well as granting access to the system for other persons (Alotaibi & Federico, 2017; McGonigle & Mastrian, 2017). My experiences of how nurse informaticists interact with other specialists in my organization are within the framework of interprofessional collaboration.
For instance, when a quality issue arises such as an increase in the number of readmissions; the chief medical officer in his capacity as the chairman of the quality improvement committee may request the nurse informaticist to retrieve data related to this quality metric and present it in a useful form for decision-making (Wang et al., 2018; Darvish et al., 2014).
Nurse informaticists are also the project managers in any project involving implementation of any technological acquisition by the organization (Sipes, 2016). In this context, she interacts with other specialists within the framework of getting their input into the functional fine-tuning of the innovation.
One strategy that might be suggested on how the above interactions can be improved is that nurse informaticists should give as many podium presentations in terms of lectures and seminars to the organization’s employees. This will demystify her role and make it easy for the other specialists to approach her with their technological concerns.
With the continued evolution of the field of nursing informatics, clinicians are bound to rely more and more on the nurse informaticist in the future for data that will help them in making clinical decisions. This is because the nurse informaticist is the gatekeeper and organizer of this information.
References
Alotaibi, Y., & Federico, F. (2017). The impact of health information technology on patient safety. Saudi Medical Journal, 38(12), 1173–1180. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2017.12.20631
Darvish, A., Bahramnezhad, F., Keyhanian, S. & Navidhamidi, M. (2014). The role of nursing informatics on promoting quality of health care and the need for appropriate education. Global Journal of Health Science, 6(6), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v6n6p11
McGonigle, D., & Mastrian, K.G. (2017). Nursing informatics and the foundation of knowledge, 4th ed. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Palatnik, A. (2016). To err is human. Nursing Critical Care, 11(5), 4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCN.0000490961.44977.8d
Sipes, C. (2016). Project management: Essential skill of nurse informaticists. Nursing Informatics, 252-256. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-658-3-252
Wang, Y., Kung, L., & Byrd, T.A. (2018). Big data analytics: Understanding its capabilities and potential benefits for healthcare organizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 126(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.12.019