DNP 805 Week 8 Evaluation of Health Care Technology GCU

dnp 805 week 8 evaluation of health care technology gcu

DNP 805 Week 8 Evaluation of Health Care Technology GCU

DNP 805 Week 8 Evaluation of Health Care Technology GCU

https://www.onlinenursingessays.com/dnp-805-week-8-evaluation-of-health-care-technology-gcu/

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: DNP 805 Week 8 Evaluation of Health Care Technology GCU

Evaluation of Healthcare Technology

An electronic health record (EHR) is a computerized form of the traditional patient charts shared among multiple providers and healthcare facilities. EHRs are increasingly being adopted in healthcare organizations as more patient information is becoming digital Tsai et al., 2020). Besides, there is a growing number of healthcare consumers who request to have mobile access to their health information. The EHR is associated with several benefits, including its capacity to automatically share and update patient data among different practices and organizations. It is more efficient to store and retrieve information from the EHR, and providers can share multimedia information, including imaging results, between locations (Tsai et al., 2020). Furthermore, the EHR is preferred for its ability to link patient records to pertinent and current research sources. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the elements of EHR, evaluation of these elements, and suggestions for improvement.

online nursing essays

Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?

Get your assignment on DNP 805 Week 8 Evaluation of Health Care Technology GCU done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

Meet my deadline

How the EHR Would Be Measured or Evaluated

The EHR will be evaluated if its standards are compliant with the HIPAA act, which mandates that patient data be kept private and secure. It will also be evaluated if it is compliant with Meaningful usage and ICD standards, which focus on the efficiency and interoperability of the integrated system. Secondly, the EHR will be evaluated for ease of use since it is purposed to improve the effectiveness of clinical practices, it and thus should be easy to use for medical and non-medical staff (Howe et al., 2018). The EHR will also be evaluated on seamless integration with existing workflows. An organization usually has existing workflows in its systems, which are often integrated with the EHR solution. The EHR would thus be analyzed and evaluated for ease of integration with the workflows and systems. Furthermore, it will be assessed for compatibility with the organization’s needs and requirements (Howe et al., 2018). Decision support features are essential in any EHR as they guide decision-making and generating reports. The EHR’s decision support features will thus be measured for their efficiency and performance of several operational factors. In addition, the EHR will be evaluated for its backup and restoration abilities and if they require minimal user intervention.

Elements That Will Be Used To Evaluate the User-Technology Interface

Elements of efficiency, effectiveness, and user satisfaction will be employed in assessing the EHR user interface. The efficiency of the interface will be evaluated through one-on-one usability testing. It involves encouraging the end-users (health providers) to complete vital assignments in the EHR system and obtaining performance data in each assignment (Monica, 2019). The efficiency of the user-technology interface will be measured through its performance data. The results from the usability testing will establish whether the EHR interfaces is inefficient and if it necessitates providers to carry out a numerous interactions to accomplish requirements for reporting and documentation.

The effectiveness of the EHR interface will be evaluated using risk analysis exercises, which establish the ability of a system to evade errors when carrying out tasks. The FMEA, a risk management tool, can be used to analyze the potential failure of the user interface using the criteria of occurrence, severity, and detection (Monica, 2019). The occurrence will be measured by establishing the grounds of failures in the interface and their recurrence rate. The severity criterion assesses the effect the shortcomings of the interface have on the end-users. The criterion of detection assesses the possibility that the EHR system will detect failures in the interface. Evaluating user satisfaction is essential in establishing EHR interface usability (Monica, 2019). User satisfaction can be evaluated by prompting users to attend to patient care tasks using the EHR and evaluate the simplicity and quality of the EHR experience.

Assessment to Determine Functionality

The functionality of the user-technology interface will be assessed using the elements of efficiency, effectiveness, and user satisfaction. Under the element of efficiency, users will be requested to record crucial pointers such as the time taken to carry out a specific clinical job and the frequency of interactions needed to finish the job (Monica, 2019). They will also provide information on the screens they went through to finish a patient case within clinical workflows and the period taken to finalize a series of commands in the EHR system. Documenting the period spent carrying out jobs using the EHR can determine the system’s level of functionality.

Effectiveness will determine functionality through one-on-one usability testing. This will involve health providers using the EHR recording the number or frequency of errors when using it, pathway used to finish a clinical job, degree of errors, and the frequency of requesting help when using the EHR (Monica, 2019). Lastly, the EHR’s interface functionality will be assessed through the rate of user satisfaction. End-users will use the System Usability Scale (SUS) to give usability ratings. The SUS is a quick standard tool that measures the usability of the EHR to determine functionality (Monica, 2019). It has a 10-item questionnaire containing five response options for respondents. Examining data on user performance and SUS ratings on user satisfaction helps identify the EHR design that best meets health providers’ needs and promotes higher levels of clinical efficiency.

Suggestions for Improvement

Improved EHR usability results in greater EHR adoption rates, reduced clinical errors, decreased clinician burnout, improved patient safety, and financial benefits. The efficiency of the EHR can be improved through testing and optimization. Health organizations can carry out internal tests to uphold EHR usability during the life of the EHR system. The tests help identify gaps affecting the EHR’s efficiency and correct them promptly. The EHR interface can also be optimized to improve usability (Howe et al., 2018). In addition, EHR usability can be improved through continuous staff (end-users) training. Health organizations should provide training opportunities for their providers on the use of the EHR to enable them to develop advanced mastery of EHR functionality (Ball et al., 2021). Training would ameliorate most user-technology interface challenges, thus improving the EHR’s effectiveness, efficiency, and user experience.

Conclusion

The EHR would be evaluated in the following aspects: standards compliance, ease of use, seamless integration with existing workflows, compatibility for practice, decision support features, and backup and restoration. The EHR’s user-technology interface will be evaluated through its efficiency, effectiveness, and user satisfaction. End-users will be involved in the evaluation by providing information on how they found the EHR effective and efficient when completing a clinical task within the EHR system. EHR usability can be improved through testing, optimization, and staff training.

References

Ball, R. V., Miller, D. B., Wallace, S., Macias, K. C., Ibrahim, M., Gonzaga, E. R., … & Sawyer, B. D. (2021, June). Optimizing Electronic Health Records Through Readability. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care (Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 65-70). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/2327857921101028

Howe, J. L., Adams, K. T., Hettinger, A. Z., & Ratwani, R. M. (2018). Electronic health record usability issues and potential contribution to patient harm. Jama, 319(12), 1276-1278. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.1171

Monica, K. (2019, March). How to Design a Comprehensive EHR Usability Assessment. https://ehrintelligence.com/features/how-to-design-a-comprehensive-ehr-usability-assessment

Tsai, C. H., Eghdam, A., Davoody, N., Wright, G., Flowerday, S., & Koch, S. (2020). Effects of Electronic Health Record Implementation and Barriers to Adoption and Use: A Scoping Review and Qualitative Analysis of the Content. Life (Basel, Switzerland), 10(12), 327. https://doi.org/10.3390/life10120327

DNP 805 Week 8 Evaluation of Health Care Technology GCU

  1. Select a technology that has been explored in the course.

Nursing practice has formed a critical part of patient care in the past years and at present by adapting to the ever-changing patient care landscape. There has been an increased call for better and improved patient care making the stakeholders explore options that can result in better results. One such strategy that has gained attention and momentum is the technology and technological applications (Wu & Luo, 2019). Technology has largely been used in the health care sector to enhance disease diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and management. The implication is that patient care, treatment, and disease management have greatly improved over the years, preventing several death cases. With continued innovation and invention, more and better technological applications are likely to enter the patient care environment to make the processes even better. As such, the purpose of this paper is to explore a technology that has been studied in this course, explore the measurement and evaluation of its elements, and the user interfaces evaluation. In addition, this write-up will explore the determination of the functionality of the technology and any possible improvements.

The Identified Technology

Several technologies and technological applications have been explored in this course. Therefore, the chosen technology to be addressed in this assignment is assistive technologies for older adults. These are technologies that have been invented to help older individuals have better outcomes by preventing falls, using alarms to detect their movements, and ensuring that they are safe from harm, among others. Among such assistive technologies for older individuals are smart homes (Pirzada et al., 2018). Smart homes are created in such a way that the home environment contains devices that help in monitoring the individuals. Such monitoring improves their independence and enhances their life quality.

  1. Using the technology you have selected, define and describe how the element would be measured or evaluated.
  2. Using the content in the textbook and other readings, list three elements that will be used to evaluate the user-technology interface.
  3. Perform an assessment using elements of user-technology interface or human factors methods to determine functionality.
  4. For each element, propose practicable suggestions for improvement using support from the literature.
  1. Evaluation of Health Care Technology – Rubric
  2. Collapse All Evaluation Of Health Care Technology – RubricCollapse All
  3. Selection of a Specific Technology Explored in This Course
  4. 11 points
  5. Criteria Description
  6. Selection of a Specific Technology Explored in This Course
  7. Excellent
  8. 11 points
  9. Selection of a specific technology explored in this course is present. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
  10. Good
  11. 12 points
  12. Selection of a specific technology explored in this course is present. Discussion is convincing. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
  13. Satisfactory
  14. 68 points
  15. Selection of a specific technology explored in this course is perfunctory.
  16. Less Than Satisfactory
  17. 8 points
  18. Selection of a specific technology explored in this course is marginal or incomplete.
  19. Unsatisfactory
  20. 0 points
  21. Selection of a specific technology explored in this course is not present.
  22. Assessment Performed Using Elements of User-Technology Interface or Human Factor Methods to Determin
  23. 5 points
  24. Criteria Description
  25. Assessment Performed Using Elements of User-Technology Interface or Human Factor Methods to Determine Existing Functionality of the Specified Technology
  26. Excellent
  27. 5 points
  28. An assessment using elements of user-technology interface or human factor methods to determine existing functionality of the specified technology is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
  29. Good
  30. 18 points
  31. An assessment using elements of user-technology interface or human factor methods to determine existing functionality of the specified technology is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
  32. Satisfactory
  33. 52 points
  34. An assessment using elements of user-technology interface or human factor methods to determine existing functionality of the specified technology is present but at a perfunctory level.
  35. Less Than Satisfactory
  36. 2 points
  37. An assessment using elements of user-technology interface or human factor methods to determine existing functionality of the specified technology is marginal or incomplete.
  38. Unsatisfactory
  39. 0 points
  40. An assessment using elements of user-technology interface or human factor methods to determine existing functionality of the specified technology is not present.
  41. List With Support for Three Elements of the Specified Technology That Will Be Used to Evaluate the U
  42. 5 points
  43. Criteria Description
  44. List With Support for Three Elements of the Specified Technology That Will Be Used to Evaluate the User-Technology Interface Using the Course Content
  45. Excellent
  46. 5 points
  47. A list with support of three elements of the specified technology that will be used to evaluate the user-technology interface using the course content is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
  48. Good
  49. 18 points
  50. A list with support of three elements of the specified technology that will be used to evaluate the user-technology interface using the course content is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
  51. Satisfactory
  52. 52 points
  53. A list with support of three elements of the specified technology that will be used to evaluate the user-technology interface using the course content is present but at a perfunctory level.
  54. Less Than Satisfactory
  55. 2 points
  56. A list with support of three elements of the specified technology that will be used to evaluate the user-technology interface using the course content is present but is marginal or incomplete.
  57. Unsatisfactory
  58. 0 points
  59. A list with support of three elements of the specified technology that will be used to evaluate the user-technology interface using the course content is not present.
  60. Definition of Each Element of the Specified Technology Identified and Description of How Each Elemen
  61. 5 points
  62. Criteria Description
  63. Definition of Each Element of the Specified Technology Identified and Description of How Each Element Would Be Measured or Evaluated
  64. Excellent
  65. 5 points
  66. A definition of each element of the specified technology identified and a description of how each element would be measured or evaluated are present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
  67. Good
  68. 18 points
  69. A definition of each element of the specified technology identified and a description of how each element would be measured or evaluated are present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
  70. Satisfactory
  71. 52 points
  72. A definition of each element of the specified technology identified and a description of how each element would be measured or evaluated are present but at a perfunctory level.
  73. Less Than Satisfactory
  74. 2 points
  75. A definition of each element of the specified technology identified and a description of how each element would be measured or evaluated are present but are marginal or incomplete.
  76. Unsatisfactory
  77. 0 points
  78. A definition of each element of the specified technology identified and a description of how each element would be measured or evaluated are not present.
  79. Proposal That Employs Support From the Literature to Provide Practicable Suggestions for Improvement
  80. 5 points
  81. Criteria Description
  82. Proposal That Employs Support From the Literature to Provide Practicable Suggestions for Improvement in the Use of Each Element of the Specified Technology
  83. Excellent
  84. 5 points
  85. A proposal that employs support from the literature to provide practicable suggestions for improvement in the use of each element of the specified technology is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
  86. Good
  87. 18 points
  88. A proposal that employs support from the literature to provide practicable suggestions for improvement in the use of each element of the specified technology is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources.
  89. Satisfactory
  90. 52 points
  91. A proposal that employs support from the literature to provide practicable suggestions for improvement in the use of each element of the specified technology is present but at a perfunctory level.
  92. Less Than Satisfactory
  93. 2 points
  94. A proposal that employs support from the literature to provide practicable suggestions for improvement in the use of each element of the specified technology is present but is marginal or incomplete.
  • Unsatisfactory
  1. 0 points
  2. A proposal that employs support from the literature to provide practicable suggestions for improvement in the use of each element of the specified technology is not present.
  3. Purpose
  4. 7 points
  5. Criteria Description
  6. Purpose
  • Excellent
  1. 7 points
  2. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
  • Good
  1. 08 points
  2. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
  • Satisfactory
  1. 78 points
  2. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
  • Less Than Satisfactory
  1. 16 points
  2. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
  • Unsatisfactory
  1. 0 points
  2. Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
  3. Argument Logic and Construction
  4. 8 points
  5. Criteria Description
  6. Argument Logic and Construction
  • Excellent
  1. 8 points
  2. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
  • Good
  1. 1 points
  2. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
  • Satisfactory
  1. 74 points
  2. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
  • Less Than Satisfactory
  1. 04 points
  2. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
  • Unsatisfactory
  1. 0 points
  2. Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
  3. Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
  4. 5 points
  5. Criteria Description
  6. Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
  • Excellent
  1. 5 points
  2. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
  • Good
  1. 06 points
  2. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
  • Satisfactory
  1. 84 points
  2. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
  • Less Than Satisfactory
  1. 4 points
  2. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
  • Unsatisfactory
  1. 0 points
  2. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
  3. Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
  4. 5 points
  5. Criteria Description
  6. Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
  • Excellent
  1. 5 points
  2. All format elements are correct.
  • Good
  1. 06 points
  2. Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
  • Satisfactory
  1. 84 points
  2. Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
  • Less Than Satisfactory
  1. 4 points
  2. Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.
  • Unsatisfactory
  1. 0 points
  2. Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
  3. Documentation of Sources
  4. 5 points
  5. Criteria Description
  6. Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
  • Excellent
  1. 5 points
  2. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
  • Good
  1. 06 points
  2. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
  • Satisfactory
  1. 84 points
  2. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
  • Less Than Satisfactory
  1. 4 points
  2. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
  • Unsatisfactory
  1. 0 points
  2. Sources are not documented.

Don’t wait until the last minute

Fill in your requirements and let our experts deliver your work asap.

Start My Order