The Assignment:

Examine Case 2: You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the diagnosis and treatment for this client. Be sure to consider co-morbid physical as well as mental factors that might impact the client’s diagnosis and treatment.

At each Decision Point, stop to complete the following:

• Decision #1: Differential Diagnosis
  • Which Decision did you select?
  • Why did you select this Decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • What were you hoping to achieve by making this Decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #1 and the results of the Decision. Why were they different?
• Decision #2: Treatment Plan for Psychotherapy
  • Why did you select this Decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • What were you hoping to achieve by making this Decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #2 and the results of the Decision. Why were they different?
• Decision #3: Treatment Plan for Psychopharmacology
  • Why did you select this Decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • What were you hoping to achieve by making this Decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.
  • Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #3 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?
• Also include how ethical considerations might impact your treatment plan and communication with clients and their families.

Note: Support your rationale with a minimum of three academic resources. While you may use the course text to support your rationale, it will not count toward the resource requirement.

Rubric:

 

Quality of Work Submitted: The extent of which work meets the assigned criteria and work reflects graduate-level critical and analytic thinking.–

Excellent 27 (27%) – 30 (30%)Good 24 (24%) – 26 (26%)Fair 21 (21%) – 23 (23%)Poor 0 (0%) – 20 (20%)

Quality of Work Submitted: The purpose of the paper is clear.–

Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas: The extent to which the work reflects the student’s ability to:

Understand and interpret the assignment’s key concepts.–

Excellent 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)Good 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)Fair 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)Poor 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas: The extent to which the work reflects the student’s ability to:

Apply and integrate material in course resources (i.e., video, required readings, and textbook) and credible outside resources.–

Excellent 18 (18%) – 20 (20%)Good 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)Fair 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)Poor 0 (0%) – 13 (13%)

Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas: The extent to which the work reflects the student’s ability to:

Synthesize (combines various components or different ideas into a new whole) material in course resources (i.e., video, required readings, textbook) and outside, credible resources by comparing different points of view and highlighting similarities, differences, and connections.–

Excellent 18 (18%) – 20 (20%)Good 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)Fair 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)Poor 0 (0%) – 13 (13%)

Written Expression and Formatting
Paragraph and Sentence Structure: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are clearly structured and carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance.–

Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Written Expression and Formatting
English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.–

Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Written Expression and Formatting
The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.–

Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) 

  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 a 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:

• Review the Resources and reflect on the impact of      clinical systems on outcomes and efficiencies within the context of      nursing practice and healthcare delivery.
• Conduct a search for recent (within the last 5 years)      research focused on the application of clinical systems. The research      should provide evidence to support the use of one type of clinical system      to improve outcomes and/or efficiencies, such as “the use of personal      health records or portals to support patients newly diagnosed with      diabetes.”
• Identify and select 4 peer-reviewed research articles from your research.
• For information about annotated bibliographies,      visit https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/annotatedbibliographies

The Assignment: ( 5-6 pages not including the title and reference page)

In a 5-6 page paper, synthesize the peer-reviewed research you reviewed. Format your Assignment as an Annotated Bibliography. Be sure to address the following:

• Identify the 4 peer-reviewed research articles you reviewed, citing each in APA format.
• Include an introduction explaining the purpose of the paper.
• 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.
• In your conclusion, synthesize the findings from the 4      peer-reviewed research articles.
• Use APA format and include a title page.

1)  Identify the 4 peer-reviewed articles, citing each in APA format, 

2)  Summarize each study explaining:

a) improvements to outcomes,

b) efficiencies (to staff, patient, facility as a result of implementing the clinical system/clinical technology described in the article), and 

c) lessons learned from the application of the clinical system/clinical technology. Be specific AND provide examples., and

3) in your conclusion, synthesize the findings from the 4 peer-reviewed research articles. 

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

· Chapter 14, “The Electronic Health Record and Clinical Informatics” (pp. 267–287)

· Chapter 15, “Informatics Tools to Promote Patient Safety and Quality Outcomes” (pp. 293–317)

· Chapter 16, “Patient Engagement and Connected Health” (pp. 323–338)

· Chapter 17, “Using Informatics to Promote Community/Population Health” (pp. 341–355)

· Chapter 18, “Telenursing and Remote Access Telehealth” (pp. 359–388)

Dykes, P. C., Rozenblum, R., Dalal, A., Massaro, A., Chang, F., Clements, M., Collins, S. …Bates, D. W. (2017). Prospective evaluation of a multifaceted intervention to improve outcomes in intensive care: The Promoting Respect and Ongoing Safety Through Patient Engagement Communication and Technology Study. Critical Care Medicine, 45(8), e806–e813. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000002449

HealthIT.gov. (2018c). What is an electronic health record (EHR)? Retrieved from 

https://www.healthit.gov/faq/what-electronic-health-record-ehr

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. 

Skiba, D. (2017). Evaluation tools to appraise social media and mobile applications. Informatics, 4(3), 32–40. 

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Public Health Informatics [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author. –Downloads– Download Video w/CC Download Audio Download Transcript 

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Electronic Records and Managing IT Change [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

· Chapter 5, “Critically Appraising Quantitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 124–188)

· Chapter 6, “Critically Appraising Qualitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 189–218)

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part I. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 47–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000383935.22721.9c

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II: Digging deeper—examining the “keeper” studies. American Journal of Nursing, 110(9), 41–48. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000388264.49427.f9

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010c). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part III: The process of synthesis: Seeing similarities and differences across the body of evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(11), 43–51. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5

Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Critical appraisal of qualitative evidence. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 15(3), 202–207. doi:10.1177/1078390309338733

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Appraising the Research [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.