Discussion: Week 1 For this Discussion, reflect on the role of individual nursing informatics innovators and consider their contributions, the impact of their contributions, and what you might specifically learn from them in your nursing practice. Reflect on your background and experiences in nursing informatics. You will also review Table 1 from the American Nurses Association (2015) Scope and Standards of Practice (2nd ed.) Explore on how you might apply the knowledge of these innovators and the information from Table 1 to your nursing practice, your education, and your future goals
Discussion: Week 1 For this Discussion, reflect on the role of individual nursing informatics innovators and consider their contributions, the impact of their contributions, and what you might specifically learn from them in your nursing practice. Reflect on your background and experiences in nursing informatics. You will also review Table 1 from the American Nurses Association (2015) Scope and Standards of Practice (2nd ed.) Explore on how you might apply the knowledge of these innovators and the information from Table 1 to your nursing practice, your education, and your future goals
Health Information Technology and Nursing Informatics: Introduction
In the video, Nursing Informatics Innovators, you are provided an extensive list of 34 nursing informatics innovators. Each of these individuals has been integral in advancing nursing informatics and the field of nursing practice.
Innovators in the field of nursing informatics, led the way in shifting the perception of a nurse as an art of patient care, to the practice of nursing as a science, vested in science, technology, and advancements.
[elementor-template id="144964"]Nursing informatics innovators facilitated and created major advancements in the field of nursing and ensured the field would be one of advancement, continual change, and scientific innovation. Exploring the work of these innovators is essential in understanding where nursing informatics began, where it is now, and where it continues to go.
ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER 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
For this Discussion, reflect on the role of individual nursing informatics innovators and consider their contributions, the impact of their contributions, and what you might specifically learn from them in your nursing practice. Reflect on your background and experiences in nursing informatics. You will also review Table 1 from the American Nurses Association (2015) Scope and Standards of Practice (2nd ed.) Explore on how you might apply the knowledge of these innovators and the information from Table 1 to your nursing practice, your education, and your future goals.
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
Sipes, C. (2024). Project management for the advanced practice nurse (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing.
Chapter 1, “Basic Project Management for the Advanced Practice Nurses and Healthcare Professionals” (pp. 3–21)
Chapter 2, “Advanced Practice Nurse Role Descriptions and Application of Project Management Concepts” (pp. 22–54)
Chapter 3, “Design/Initiation: Project Management—Phase 1” (pp. 55–84)
American Nurses Association. (2015). Nursing informaticsLinks to an external site.: Scope and standards of practice (2nd ed.).
“Introduction” (p. 1)
“The Scope of Nursing Informatics Practice” (pp. 1–6)
“Standard 1: Assessment” (pp. 68–69)
“Standard 2: Diagnosis, Problems, and Issues Identification” (p. 70)
Marr, B. (2020). These 25 technology trends will define the next decadeLinks to an external site.. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2020/04/20/these-25-technology-trends-will-define-the-next-decade/?sh=459cc02129e3
Walden University Oasis: Writing Center. (n.d.). Citations: OverviewLinks to an external site.. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/apa/citations
Walden University Oasis: Writing Center. (n.d.). Common assignments: Discussion postLinks to an external site.. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/discussionpost
Required Media
American Medical Informatics Association. (2021). Nursing informatics innovatorsLinks to an external site.. https://amia.org/community/working-groups/nursing-informatics/nursing-informatics-innovators
Data Science Show. (2018, August 14). What is healthcare informaticsLinks to an external site.? Introduction to nursing informatics [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP0UprsVTfk
Fung, B. (2018, November 3). Nursing informatics: A day in the lifeLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBAyqTQn28w
Project Management. (2018, November 5). Project planning for beginners: Project management trainingLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWmXi3TW1yA
ProjectManager. (2018, July 2). How to write a scope of work document: Project management trainingLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oacSSamqP6s
Document: Welcome to the DNP Program Download Welcome to the DNP Program(PPT)
Document: Welcome to the DNP Program Narrative Download Welcome to the DNP Program Narrative(Word document)
Optional Resources
Gibson, C. J., Dixon, B. E., & Abrams, K. (2015). Convergent evolution of health information management and health informatics: A perspective on the future of information professionals in health care. Applied Clinical InformaticsLinks to an external site., 6(1), 163–184. doi:10.4338/ACI-2014-09-RA-0077
McGonigle, D., Hunter, K., Sipes, C., & Hebda, T. (2014). Why nurses need to understand nursing informaticsLinks to an external site.. AORN, 100(3), 324–327. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2014.06.012
Sipes, C. (2016). Project management: Essential skill of nurse informaticists. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 225, 252–256.
Risling, T. (2017). Educating the nurses of 2025: Technology trends of the next decade. Nurse Education in PracticeLinks to an external site., 22, 89–92. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2016.12.007
To Prepare
Review the American Nurses Association. (2015). Nursing informatics: Scope and standards of practice (2nd ed.).
“Introduction” (p. 1)
“The Scope of Nursing Informatics Practice” (pp. 1–6) in this week’s resources.
By Day 3 of Week 1
After reviewing the weekly resources, including the nursing informatics innovators stories, discuss your experience with nursing informatics and how this course could enhance your informatics skills and competencies.
By Day 6 of Week 1
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days, continue the discussion by commenting on how your classmates experience could enhance your own practice.
NURS_8210_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
NURS_8210_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent
• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.
19 to >15.0 pts
Good
• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.
12 to >0 pts
Poor
• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)
30 to >29.0 pts
Excellent
Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.
29 to >23.0 pts
Good
Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.
23 to >18.0 pts
Fair
Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.
18 to >0 pts
Poor
Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.
19 to >15.0 pts
Good
Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.
12 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.
19 to >15.0 pts
Good
Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.
12 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)
10 to >9.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
9 to >8.0 pts
Good
Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
8 to >6.0 pts
Fair
Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
6 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
10 pts
Total Points: 100
[elementor-template id="144964"]