Description
In the modern era, there are few professions that do not to some extent rely on data. Stockbrokers rely on market data to advise clients on financial matters. Meteorologists rely on weather data to forecast weather conditions, while realtors rely on data to advise on the purchase and sale of property. In these and other cases, data not only helps solve problems, but adds to the practitioner’s and the discipline’s body of knowledge.
Of course, the nursing profession also relies heavily on data. The field of nursing informatics aims to make sure nurses have access to the appropriate date to solve healthcare problems, make decisions in the interest of patients, and add to knowledge.
In this Discussion, you will consider a scenario that would benefit from access to data and how such access could facilitate both problem-solving and knowledge formation.
To Prepare:
Reflect on the concepts of informatics and knowledge work as presented in the Resources.
Consider a hypothetical scenario based on your own healthcare practice or organization that would require or benefit from the access/collection and application of data. Your scenario may involve a patient, staff, or management problem or gap.
Post a description of the focus of your scenario. Describe the data that could be used and how the data might be collected and accessed. What knowledge might be derived from that data? How would a nurse leader use clinical reasoning and judgment in the formation of knowledge from this experience?
Resources
McGonigle, D., & Mastrian, K. G. (2022). Nursing informatics and the foundation of knowledge (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Chapter 1, “Nursing Science and the Foundation of Knowledge” (pp. 7–17)
Chapter 2, “Introduction to Information, Information Science, and Information Systems” (pp. 21–32)
Chapter 3, “Computer Science and the Foundation of Knowledge Model” (pp. 35–64)
Nagle, L., Sermeus, W., & Junger, A. (2017). Evolving Role of the Nursing Informatics SpecialistLinks to an external site.. In J. Murphy, W. Goosen, & P. Weber (Eds.), Forecasting Competencies for Nurses in the Future of Connected Health (212-221). Clifton, VA: IMIA and IOS Press. Retrieved from https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_4A0FEA5…
Sweeney, J. (2017). Healthcare informaticsLinks to an external site.. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics, 21(1).
NURS_5051_Module01_Week01_Discussion_Rubric
NURS_5051_Module01_Week01_Discussion_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting
50 to >44.0 ptsExcellentAnswers 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. 44 to >39.0 ptsGoodResponds 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. 39 to >34.0 ptsFairResponds 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. 34 to >0 ptsPoorDoes 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.
50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Post: Timeliness
10 to >0.0 ptsExcellentPosts main post by day 3. 0 ptsPoorDoes not post by day 3.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response
18 to >16.0 ptsExcellentResponse 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. 16 to >14.0 ptsGoodResponse 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. 14 to >12.0 ptsFairResponse 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. 12 to >0 ptsPoorResponse 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.
18 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response
17 to >15.0 ptsExcellentResponse 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 to >13.0 ptsGoodResponse 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 to >11.0 ptsFairResponse 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. 11 to >0 ptsPoorResponse 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.
17 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParticipation
5 to >0.0 ptsExcellentMeets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. 0 ptsPoorDoes not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
