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.

Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:

• Why is it important for you to know and achieve the BSHA programmatic student learning outcomes (PSLOs)?
• How will you work toward achieving these outcomes during your program? Explain.  
• Which PSLO do you think is the most important for your future career success?

 

While it is true that the CMS-1500 claim form may not be used for private-pay patients, this form will be required for all claims when the patient is covered by any form of insurance to recover payment for services. A working knowledge of the CMS-1500 is essential for all persons working in the revenue and billing area of healthcare.

Tasks:

• Using the CMS-1500 form, fill out the form for a non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (page 183 of text) and a radiological Oncology treatment (page 278 of text).
• Use patient information found on EOB Figure 4-17 of text (page 90).
• Describe the process of submitting this claim form through a third-party administrator.

Submission Details:

• Submit the process as a 1- to 2-page Microsoft Word document. Use APA standards for citations and references.
• Cite a minimum of three outside peer-reviewed sources to support your assertions and save it as SU_HCM1201_W2_Project_LastName_FirstInitial.doc. Submit the process to the Submissions Area by the due date assigned.
• Cite any sources using correct APA format on a separate page.

Please complete this assignment on the worksheet attached. 

1. Choose the ONE systematic review topic that is of most interest to you, or most relevant to your practice situation, from the required List of Approved Systematic Reviews (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..

2. Follow the grading criteria below to formulate your practice issue, which must be based on the topic of the systematic review you have selected.

3. Download the required Milestone 1 Practice Issue and Evidence Summary Worksheets (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (both worksheets appear in ONE form) to document the practice issue presented and approved by your instructor in the Week 2 Discussions.

4. You are required to complete the form using the productivity tools required by Chamberlain University, which is Microsoft Office Word 2013 (or later version), or Windows and Office 2011 (or later version) for MAC. You must save the file in the “.docx” format. Do NOT save as Word Pad. A later version of the productivity tool includes Office 365, which is available to Chamberlain students for FREE by downloading from the student portal at http://my.chamberlain.edu (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Click on the envelope at the top of the page.

5. Your practice issue will be the same for all three Milestone assignments in this course.

6. Please type your answers directly into the worksheet.

Evidence Summary Worksheet Directions

1. Develop an evidence summary by following the grading criteria below.

2. Document this on the evidence summary portion of the worksheet.

3. You will use this worksheet to incorporate your evidence summary into your Week 4 Milestone 2 assignment.

4. Please type your answers directly into the worksheet.

THE CHOSEN REVIEW SYSTEM

Obstetrics/Delivery

McFadden, A., Gavine, A., Renfrew, M. J., Wade, A., Buchanan, P., Taylor, J. L., … MacGillivray, S. (2017). Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD001141. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001141.pub5

                     Abstract

Background

There is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant’s diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation.

Objectives

To describe forms of breastfeeding support which have been evaluated in controlled studies, the timing of the interventions and the settings in which they have been used.

To examine the effectiveness of different modes of offering similar supportive interventions (for example, whether the support offered was proactive or reactive, face-to-face or over the telephone), and whether interventions containing both antenatal and postnatal elements were more effective than those taking place in the postnatal period alone.

To examine the effectiveness of different care providers and (where information was available) training.

To explore the interaction between background breastfeeding rates and effectiveness of support.

Search methods

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register (29 February 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

Main results

This updated review includes 100 trials involving more than 83,246 mother-infant pairs of which 73 studies contribute data (58 individually-randomised trials and 15 cluster-randomised trials). We considered that the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Of the 31 new studies included in this update, 21 provided data for one or more of the primary outcomes. The total number of mother-infant pairs in the 73 studies that contributed data to this review is 74,656 (this total was 56,451 in the previous version of this review). The 73 studies were conducted in 29 countries. Results of the analyses continue to confirm that all forms of extra support analyzed together showed a decrease in cessation of ‘any breastfeeding’, which includes partial and exclusive breastfeeding (average risk ratio (RR) for stopping any breastfeeding before six months 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 51 studies) and for stopping breastfeeding before four to six weeks (average RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 33 studies). All forms of extra support together also showed a decrease in cessation of exclusive breastfeeding at six months (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence, 46 studies) and at four to six weeks (average RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89; moderate quality, 32 studies). We downgraded evidence to moderate-quality due to very high heterogeneity.

We investigated substantial heterogeneity for all four outcomes with subgroup analyses for the following covariates: who delivered care, type of support, timing of support, background breastfeeding rate and number of postnatal contacts. Covariates were not able to explain heterogeneity in general. Though the interaction tests were significant for some analyses, we advise caution in the interpretation of results for subgroups due to the heterogeneity. Extra support by both lay and professionals had a positive impact on breastfeeding outcomes. Several factors may have also improved results for women practising exclusive breastfeeding, such as interventions delivered with a face-to-face component, high background initiation rates of breastfeeding, lay support, and a specific schedule of four to eight contacts. However, because within-group heterogeneity remained high for all of these analyses, we advise caution when making specific conclusions based on subgroup results. We noted no evidence for subgroup differences for the any breastfeeding outcomes.

Authors’ conclusions

When breastfeeding support is offered to women, the duration and exclusivity of breastfeeding is increased. Characteristics of effective support include: that it is offered as standard by trained personnel during antenatal or postnatal care, that it includes ongoing scheduled visits so that women can predict when support will be available, and that it is tailored to the setting and the needs of the population group. Support is likely to be more effective in settings with high initiation rates. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Strategies that rely mainly on face-to-face support are more likely to succeed with women practising exclusive breastfeeding.