Transforming Nursing
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: A REFLECTION ON NURSING INFORMATICS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
What is the importance of nursing informatics on nursing practice? What is the role of nursing informatics on technology? What is the impact of project management on implementing change in nursing practice?
Throughout the past 10 weeks, you have worked to gain the skills and knowledge needed to research, develop, process, integrate and manage data through a nursing informatics project. You have explored communication and information systems through technology resources, both emerging and advanced forms. These opportunities may have helped you to develop a clear understanding of the importance of nursing informatics in clinical practice, and this final week will help to further build this connection and understanding.
This week, you put it all together to evaluate the importance of nursing informatics on clinical practice, your healthcare organization, and nursing practice. You will also examine how project management might affect nursing practice, particularly as it relates to nursing informatics.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students will:
· Evaluate the importance of nursing informatics on clinical practice
· Analyze the role of nursing informatics on technology
· Evaluate the impact of project management on clinical practice
· Analyze how project management aligns with technology
· Analyze concepts of project management as a framework and thought process
THE VALUE OF NURSING INFORMATICS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT FOR NURSING PRACTICE
Nursing informatics works to develop communication and information technologies into clinical practice. However, this study is far more important to the discipline than just data analysis and connection. This discipline allows for growth in the industry using emerging technologies, data analysis, and changes in practice. Often, this occurs through the use of project management, to take a need, change, or issue, and identify a solution to implement in practice.
Based on your experience with your nursing informatics project, the materials provided, and evidence collection, how might you explain the value of nursing informatics and project management in nursing practice? How does nursing informatics align with technology, and how is it far more than just data collection and analysis?
For this Discussion, reflect on the implementation (or proposed implementation) of your nursing informatics project. Think about the value of the project management as it relates to nursing informatics and consider how nursing informatics impacts nursing practice and healthcare.
TO PREPARE
· Reflect on the last 10 weeks of the course, considering what you may have learned or experienced. Focus on the assigned learning materials, discussions, and projects.
· Reflect on the concepts of nursing informatics, project management, and technology that you have examined throughout this course.
· Consider how you might connect the topics and concepts that you have examined in this course to your healthcare organization or nursing practice.
· Reflect on other areas of nursing informatics in which you may be interested.
· Reflect on the value of designing a nursing informatics project, including the specific applications.
· How might the concepts and competencies of project management assist you in the development of your DNP Project or dissertation?
Post a cohesive response that reflects on what you have examined in this course regarding the value of nursing informatics and how it may impact your clinical practice.
How will you use what you have learned in this class in your professional practice and in your DNP project or dissertation? Identify two new informatics competencies that you have learned and discuss how you might use them to change your own practice.
Assignment Rubric Details
Close
Rubric
NURS_8210_Week11_Discussion_Rubric
NURS_8210_Week11_Discussion_Rubric |
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) |
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent • Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts. |
19 to >15.0 pts
Good • Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts. |
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair • Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part. |
12 to >0 pts
Poor • Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty. |
| 20 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) |
30 to >29.0 pts
Excellent Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. |
29 to >23.0 pts
Good Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. |
23 to >18.0 pts
Fair Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. |
18 to >0 pts
Poor Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. |
| 30 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) |
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
19 to >15.0 pts
Good Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty. |
12 to >0 pts
Poor Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty. |
| 20 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) |
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
19 to >15.0 pts
Good Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty. |
12 to >0 pts
Poor Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty. |
| 20 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) |
10 to >9.0 pts
Excellent Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
9 to >8.0 pts
Good Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
8 to >6.0 pts
Fair Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
6 to >0 pts
Poor Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
| 10 pts |
Total Points: 100 |
