NURS 8210 WEEK 8 ASSIGNMENT: THE INTERSECTION OF SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH ON HIT AND PATIENT OUTCOMES

NURS 8210 WEEK 8 ASSIGNMENT: THE INTERSECTION OF SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH ON HIT AND PATIENT OUTCOMES

NURS 8210 WEEK 8 ASSIGNMENT: THE INTERSECTION OF SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH ON HIT AND PATIENT OUTCOMES

Health literacy is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as, “the cognitive and social skills which determine the motivation and ability of individuals to gain access to, understand, and use information in ways that promote and maintain good health” (n.d.). The American Medical Association (AMA) defines health literacy as, “a constellation of skills, including the ability to perform basic reading and numerical tasks required to function in the health care environment” (Baker, 2006). These definitions highlight the importance of health literacy for both healthcare workers and patients.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NURS 8210 WEEK 8 ASSIGNMENT: THE INTERSECTION OF SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH ON HIT AND PATIENT OUTCOMES HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

Whether it is the ability to fully analyze and interpret a researched study, or to speak to patients in a way that gains their trust and develops their understanding, health literacy directly relates to patient care.

However, understanding the importance of health literacy does not directly correlate to effective health literacy, so how does health literacy impact patient outcomes? What barriers or social determinants might impact health literacy?

For this Discussion, reflect on your understanding of health literacy, health information technology, and health economics. Consider the impact of each of these topics and explore how they are related to patient care. You will also recommend strategies to overcome potential barriers as they relate to the topics.

References:

Baker, D. W. (2006). The meaning and measure of health literacy. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(8), 878–883. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00540.x

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Health promotion. https://www.who.int/teams/health-promotion/enhanced-wellbeing/seventh-global-conference/health-literacy#:~:text=Health%20Literacy%20has%20been%20defined,promote%20and%20maintain%20good%20health

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

American Nurses Association. (2015). Nursing informaticsLinks to an external site.: Scope and standards of practice (2nd ed.).

“Standard 5: Implementation” (pp. 73–74)

“Standard 5a: Coordination of Activities” (p. 75)

“Standard 6: Evaluation” (p. 78)

“Standard 11: Communication” (p. 86)

“Standard 12: Leadership” (pp. 87–88)

“Standard 15: Resource Utilization” (p. 92)

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. (n.d.). Health IT: Advancing America’s health careLinks to an external site..

https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/health-information-technology-fact-sheet.pdf

Social determinants

Palakshappa, D., Scheerer, M., Semelka, C. T., & Foley, K. L. (2020). Screening for social determinants of health in free and charitable clinics in North CarolinaLinks to an external site.. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 31(1), 382–397. doi:10.1353/hpu.2020.0029

Links to an external site.Shah, G. H., Shankar, P., Schwind, J. S., & Sittaramane, V. (2020). The detrimental impact of the COVID-19 crisis on health equity and social determinants of healthLinks to an external site.. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 26(4), 317–319. doi:10.1097/PHH.0000000000001200

Sharma, S. V., Chuang, R. J., Rushing, M., Naylor, B., Ranjit, N., Pomeroy, M., & Markham, C. (2020). Social determinants of health–related needs during COVID-19 among low-income households with childrenLinks to an external site.. Preventing Chronic Disease, 17, 200–322. doi:10.5888/pcd17.200322

Yao, R. (2019). The future of consumer healthcareLinks to an external site.. https://medium.com/ipg-media-lab/the-future-of-consumer-healthcare-71ff82d6ee25

HIT on patient outcomes

HealthIT.gov. (2019). Improved diagnostics & patient outcomesLinks to an external site.. https://www.healthit.gov/topic/health-it-and-health-information-exchange-basics/improved-diagnostics-patient-outcomes

Health economics

Hammeken, L. H., Baunwall, S. M. D., Hvas, C. L., & Ehlers, L. H. (2021). Health economic evaluations comparing faecal microbiota transplantation with antibiotics for treatment of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: A systematic reviewLinks to an external site.. Health Economics Review, 11(3). doi:10.1186/s13561-021-00301-7

Links to an external site.Seixas, B. V., Dionne, F., & Mitton, C. (2021). Practices of decision making in priority setting and resource allocation: A scoping review and narrative synthesis of existing frameworksLinks to an external site.. Health Economics Review, 11(2). doi:10.1186/s13561-020-00300-0

Links to an external site.Xu, X., Lazar, C. M., & Ruger, J. P. (2021). Micro-costing in health and medicine: A critical appraisalLinks to an external site.. Health Economics Review, 11(1). doi:10.1186/s13561-020-00298-5

Required Media

Let’s Learn Public Health. (2017, June 25). Social determinants of health – an introductionLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PH4JYfF4Ns

Optional Resources

Brenner, S. K., Kaushal, R., Grinspan, Z., Joyce, C., Kim, I., Allard, R. J., Delgado, D., & Abramson, E. L. (2016). Effects of health information technology on patient outcomes: A systematic reviewLinks to an external site.. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(5), 1016–1036.

TO PREPARE

Review the Learning Resources associated with the topics: Health Literacy, Health Information Technology (HIT) on Patient Outcomes, and Health Economics.

Consider the role of each of these topics in influencing how healthcare is delivered and practiced in your healthcare organization or nursing practice.

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 8

Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

What strategies do you recommend for addressing barriers and challenges associated with social determinants of health in nursing practice? How can nurses effectively use information technologies to support the delivery of equitable care to all patients?

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 8

Read a selection of your colleagues’ blog posts and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by expanding upon their responses or sharing additional or alternative perspectives.

NURS_8210_Week8_Blog_Rubric

NURS_8210_Week8_Blog_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting: Idea and Content
60 to >49.0 pts

Excellent

• Thoroughly responds to the blog prompt/s. • Post provides comprehensive insight, understanding, or reflection about the topic through a focused analysis of the topic supported by personal experiences and/or examples. • Personal opinions are expressed and are clearly related to the topic, activity or process identified in blog prompts. • The post reflects in-depth engagement with the topic. • Posts main blog by due date.

49 to >38.0 pts

Good

• Responds to all of the blog prompt/s. • Post provides insight, understanding, or reflection about the topic through a reasonably focused analysis of the topic supported by personal experiences and/or examples. • Personal opinions are expressed and are but not fully developed to align with blog prompts. • The post reflects moderate engagement with the topic. • Posts main blog by due date.

38 to >27.0 pts

Fair

• Partially responds to the blog prompt/s. • Posts are typically short and may contain some irrelevant material. • The post is mostly description or summary without connections or analysis between ideas. • The post reflects minimal engagement with the topic. • Posts main blog by due date.

27 to >0 pts

Poor

• Does not respond to the blog prompt/s or entries lack insight, depth or are superficial. • The entries are short and are frequently irrelevant to the events. • They do not express opinion clearly and show little understanding. • The post does not reflect engagement with the topic. • Does not post main blog by due date.

60 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Post to colleague’s main blogpost shows evidence of insight, understanding, or reflective thought about the topic. NOTE: Responses to faculty are not counted as first or second colleague responses.
20 to >11.0 pts

Excellent

• Presents a focused and cohesive viewpoint in addressing this response. • Response includes focused questions or examples related to colleague’s post. • Response stimulates dialogue and commentary. • Posts by due date.

11 to >6.0 pts

Good

• Presents a specific viewpoint that is focused and cohesive. • Response includes at least one focused question or example related to colleague’s post. • There is some attempt to stimulate dialogue and commentary. • Posts by due date.

6 to >2.0 pts

Fair

• Presents a specific viewpoint but lacks supporting examples or focused questions related to colleague’s post. • The posting is brief and reflects minimal effort to connect with colleague. • Posts by due date.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

• Response lacks a specific viewpoint and supporting examples or focused questions related to colleague’s post. • The post does not stimulate dialogue or connect with the colleague. • Does not post by due date.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Post to second colleague blog post shows evidence of insight, understanding, or reflective thought about the topic.
20 to >11.0 pts

Excellent

• Presents a focused and cohesive viewpoint in addressing this response. • Response includes focused questions or examples related to colleague’s post. • Response stimulates dialogue and commentary. • Posts by due date.

11 to >6.0 pts

Good

• Presents a specific viewpoint that is focused and cohesive. • Response includes at least one focused question or example related to colleague’s post. • There is some attempt to stimulate dialogue and commentary. • Posts by due date.

6 to >2.0 pts

Fair

• Presents a specific viewpoint but lacks supporting examples or focused questions related to colleague’s post. • The posting is brief and reflects minimal effort to connect with colleague. • Posts by due date.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

• Response lacks a specific viewpoint and supporting examples or focused questions related to colleague’s post. • The does not stimulate dialogue or connect with the colleague. • Does not post by due date.

20 pts

Total Points: 100