Discussion: The Inclusion of Nurses in the Systems Development Life…

Description In the media introduction to this module, it was suggested that you as a nurse have an important role in the Systems Development Life…

Description

In the media introduction to this module, it was suggested that you as a nurse have an important role in the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC). With a focus on patient care and outcomes, nurses may not always see themselves as contributors to the development of new systems. However, as you may have observed in your own experience, exclusion of nurse contributions when implementing systems can have dire consequences.

In this Discussion, you will consider the role you might play in systems development and the ramifications of not being an active participant in systems development.

To Prepare:

Review the steps of the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) as presented in the Resources.Reflect on your own healthcare organization and consider any steps your healthcare organization goes through when purchasing and implementing a new health information technology system.Consider what a nurse might contribute to decisions made at each stage of the SDLC when planning for new health information technology.By Day 3 of Week 9Post a description of what you believe to be the consequences of a healthcare organization not involving nurses in each stage of the SDLC when purchasing and implementing a new health information technology system. Provide specific examples of potential issues at each stage of the SDLC and explain how the inclusion of nurses may help address these issues. Then, explain whether you had any input in the selection and planning of new health information technology systems in your nursing practice or healthcare organization and explain potential impacts of being included or not in the decision-making process. Be specific and provide examples.

By Day 6 of Week 9Respond to at least two of your colleagues* on two different days, by offering additional thoughts regarding the examples shared, SDLC-related issues, and ideas on how the inclusion of nurses might have impacted the example described by your colleagues.

*Note: Throughout this program, your fellow students are referred to as colleagues.

Submission and Grading InformationGrading Criteria

Excellent Good Fair PoorMain Posting45 (45%) – 50 (50%)Answers 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.40 (40%) – 44 (44%)Responds 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.35 (35%) – 39 (39%)Responds 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.0 (0%) – 34 (34%)Does 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.Main Post: Timeliness10 (10%) – 10 (10%)Posts main post by day 3.0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)Does not post by day 3.First Response17 (17%) – 18 (18%)Response 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 (15%) – 16 (16%)Response 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 (13%) – 14 (14%)Response 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.0 (0%) – 12 (12%)Response 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.Second Response16 (16%) – 17 (17%)Response 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.14 (14%) – 15 (15%)Response 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.12 (12%) – 13 (13%)Response 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.0 (0%) – 11 (11%)Response 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.Participation5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.Total Points: 100Name: NURS_5051_Module05_Week09_Discussion_Rubric

Learning ResourcesRequired ReadingsMcGonigle, D., & Mastrian, K. G. (2017). Nursing informatics and the foundation of knowledge (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Chapter 9, “Systems Development Life Cycle: Nursing Informatics and Organizational Decision Making” (pp. 175–187)Chapter 12, “Electronic Security” (pp. 229–242)Chapter 13, “Workflow and Beyond Meaningful Use” (pp. 245–261)Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.a). Health IT evaluation toolkit and evaluation measures quick reference guide. Retrieved September 27, 2018, from https://healthit.ahrq.gov/health-it-tools-and-resources/evaluation-resources/health-it-evaluation-toolkit-and-evaluation-measures-quick-reference

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.b). Workflow assessment for health IT toolkit. Retrieved September 27, 2018, from https://healthit.ahrq.gov/health-it-tools-and-resources/evaluation-resources/workflow-assessment-health-it-toolkit

Required MediaLouis, I. (2011, August 17). Systems development life cycle (SDLC) [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpyjPrpyX8

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Interoperability, Standards, and Security [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Accessible playerLaureate Education (Producer). (2018). Managing Health Information Technology [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Accessible playerDiscussion: The Inclusion of Nurses in the Systems Development Life CycleIn the media introduction to this module, it was suggested that you as a nurse have an important role in the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC). With a focus on patient care and outcomes, nurses may not always see themselves as contributors to the development of new systems. However, as you may have observed in your own experience, exclusion of nurse contributions when implementing systems can have dire consequences.

In this Discussion, you will consider the role you might play in systems development and the ramifications of not being an active participant in systems development.

To Prepare:

Review the steps of the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) as presented in the Resources.Reflect on your own healthcare organization and consider any steps your healthcare organization goes through when purchasing and implementing a new health information technology system.Consider what a nurse might contribute to decisions made at

Sample Solution
The United States is home to probably the most famous and productive sequential executioners ever. Names, for example, Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway, and the Zodiac Killer have become commonly recognized names because of the awful idea of their violations. One of the most productive sequential executioners in American history is John Wayne Gacy. Nicknamed the Killer Clown in view of his calling, Gacy assaulted and killed in any event 33 adolescent young men and youngsters somewhere in the range of 1972 and 1978, which is one of the most elevated realized unfortunate casualty tallies. Gacy’s story has become so notable that his wrongdoings have been included in mainstream society and TV appears, for example, American Horror Story: Hotel and Criminal Minds. Criminological science has, and keeps on playing, a significant job in the explaining of the case and recognizable proof of the people in question. John Wayne Gacy’s history of sexual and psychological mistreatment was instrumental in arousing specialist’s curiosity of him as a suspect. John Wayne Gacy was conceived on March 17, 1942, in Chicago, Illinois. Being the main child out of three kids, Gacy had a stressed association with his dad, who drank intensely and was frequently oppressive towards the whole family (Sullivan and Maiken 48). In 1949, a temporary worker, who was a family companion, would pet Gacy during rides in his truck; be that as it may, Gacy never uncovered these experiences to his folks inspired by a paranoid fear of revenge from his dad (Foreman 54). His dad’s mental maltreatment proceeded into his young grown-up years, and Gacy moved to Las Vegas where he worked quickly in the emergency vehicle administration before turning into a morgue chaperon (Sullivan and Maiken 50). As a funeral home orderly, Gacy was intensely associated with the treating procedure and conceded that one night, he moved into the pine box of a perished young kid and touched the body (Cahill and Ewing 46). Stunned at himself, Gacy comes back to Chicago to live with his family and graduates from Northwestern Business College in 1963, and acknowledges an administration student position with Nunn-Bush Shoe Company. In 1964, Gacy is moved to Springfield and meets his future spouse, Marlynn Myers. In Springfield, Gacy has his subsequent gay experience when a colleague shakily performed oral sex on him (London 11:7). Gacy moves to Waterloo, Iowa, and starts a family with Myers. In any case, after normally undermining his significant other with whores, Gacy submits his originally known rape in 1967 upon Donald Vorhees. In the coming months, Gacy explicitly manhandles a few different young people and is captured and accused of oral homosexuality (Sullivan and Maiken 60). On December 3, 1968, Gacy is indicted and condemned to ten years at the Anamosa State Penitentiary. Gacy turns into a model prisoner at Anamosa and is allowed parole in June of 1970, a negligible year and a half after his condemning. He had to migrate to Chicago and live with his mom and watch a 10:00PM check in time. Not exactly a year later, Gacy is accused again of explicitly attacking a high school kid however the young didn’t show up in court, so the charges were dropped. Gacy was known by numerous individuals in his locale to be an eager volunteer and being dynamic in network legislative issues. His job as “Pogo the Clown” the comedian started in 1975 when Gacy joined a nearby “Happy Joker” jokester club that normally performed at gathering pledges occasions. On January 3, 1972, Gacy submits his first homicide of Timothy McCoy, a 16-year old kid making a trip from Michigan to Omaha. Guaranteeing that McCoy went into his room employing a kitchen blade, Gacy gets into a physical quarrel with McCoy before cutting him over and again in the chest. In the wake of understanding that McCoy had absentmindedly strolled into the stay with the blade while attempting to get ready breakfast, Gacy covers the body in his creep space. Gacy conceded in the meetings following his capture that slaughtering McCoy gave him a “mind-desensitizing climax”, expressing that this homicide was the point at which he “understood demise was a definitive rush” (Cahill and Ewing 349). Right around 2 years after the fact, Gacy submits his second homicide of a unidentified young person. Gacy choked the kid before stuffing the body in his wardrobe before covering him (Cahill 349). In 1975, Gacy’s business was developing rapidly and his craving for youngsters developed with it. Gacy regularly attracted youngsters under his work to his home, persuading them to place themselves in cuffs, and assaulting and tormenting them before choking them (Cahill 169-170). The vast majority of Gacy’s homicides occurred somewhere in the range of 1976 and 1978, the first of this time occurring in April 1976. Huge numbers of the adolescents that were killed during this time were covered in a slither space under Gacy’s home. For the rest of the killings, Gacy confessed to losing five bodies the I-55 extension into the Des Plaines River; in any case, just four of the bodies were ever recouped (Linedecker 152). In December 1978, Gacy meets Robert Jerome Piest, a 15-year old kid working at a drug store and extends to him an employment opportunity at Gacy’s firm. Piest advises his mom regarding this and neglects to restore that night. The Piest family records a missing individual’s report and the drug specialist advises police that Gacy would in all probability be the man that Jerome addressed about a vocation. When addressed by the police, Gacy denied any inclusion in Piest’s vanishing. Be that as it may, the police were not persuaded, and Gacy’s history of sexual maltreatment and battery provoked the police to look through his home. Among the things found at Gacy’s home were a 1975 secondary school class ring with the initials J.A.S., different driver’s licenses, binds, apparel that was unreasonably little for Gacy, and a receipt for the drug store that Piest had worked at. Through the span of the following barely any days, examiners got numerous calls and tips about Gacy’s rapes and the secretive vanishings of Gacy’s workers. The class ring was in the long run followed back to John A. Szyc, one of Gacy’s unfortunate casualties in 1977. Futhermore, after inspecting Gacy’s vehicle, specialists found a little bunch of filaments looking like human hair, which were sent to the labs for additional examination. That equivalent night, search hounds were utilized to identify any hint of Piest in Gacy’s vehicle, and one of the mutts demonstrated that Piest had, actually, been available in the vehicle. On December 20, 1977, under the pressure of steady police reconnaissance and examination, Gacy admits to more than 30 killings and educates his legal advisor and companion where the bodies were covered, both in the creep space and the stream. 26 unfortunate casualties were found in the creep space and 4 in the waterway. Gacy is captured, indicted for 33 killings, and condemned to death by deadly infusion. He endeavored a craziness supplication however was denied, and was executed on May 10, 1994. There were a few scientific pointers that examiners used to attach Gacy to the homicides. A portion of these include fiber examination, dental and radiology records, utilizing the decay procedure of the human body, and facial remaking in recognizing the people in question. Examiners discovered filaments that took after human hair in both Gacy’s vehicle and close to the creep space where the bodies were covered. Notwithstanding these hair tests, specialists additionally discovered strands that contained hints of Gacy’s blood and semen in a similar region. Blood having a place with the exploited people was found on a portion of the filaments, which would later legitimately attach Gacy to the violations. The strands in Gacy’s vehicle were examined by scientific researchers and coordinated Piest’s hair tests. Moreover, the pursuit hounds that confirmed that Piest had been in Gacy’s vehicle showed this by a “passing response”, which told examiners that Piest’s dead body had been within Gacy’s vehicle. Out of Gacy’s 33 known unfortunate casualties, just 25 were ever indisputably recognized. A considerable lot of Gacy’s exploited people had comparative physical depictions and were hence difficult to distinguish by simply asking the general population. To distinguish the people in question, agents went to Betty Pat Gatliff, a pioneer in scientific science and facial reproduction. Facial remaking is the way toward reproducing the facial highlights of a person by utilizing their remaining parts. Certain facial highlights, for example, facial structures, nasal structure, and generally speaking face shape can be helpful in distinguishing an injured individual even long in the afterlife. By utilizing these highlights, and with the assistance of program, scientific agents can make a picture of an individual’s face, which is instrumental in distinguishing exploited people after their bodies have rotted. Facial recreation should be possible in a few measurements. Two-dimensional facial recreations is utilized with skull radiographs and depend on pre-passing photos and data. Be that as it may, this isn’t really perfect on the grounds that cranial highlights are not constantly noticeable or at the correct scale (Downing). So as to get a practical and increasingly exact delineation of the injured individual’s face, a craftsman and a measurable anthropologist are typically vital (Downing). Three-dimensional facial remaking is finished by models or high goals, three-dimensional pictures. PC programs can make facial reproductions by controlling filtered photos of the remaining parts and use approximations to reproduce facial highlights. These will in general produce results that don’t look fake (Reichs and Craig 491). Now and again, specialists will utilize a strategy called superimposition as a system for facial reproduction. Shockingly, it’s anything but a generally utilized technique, as it expects specialists to have some information about the personality of the remaining parts they are managing. By superimposing a photo of a person over the skeletal remains, specialists can check whether the facial highlights line up with the anatomical highlights, enabling them to recognize an injured individual. On account of John Wayne Gacy’s exploited people, specialists had the option to utilize facial recreation to recognize nine of the bodies found in the creep space. The accompanying realistic shows the facial reproductions of these nine unfortunate casualties: Since facial recreation was insufficient to distinguish the entirety of the v>GET ANSWER Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Do you need any assistance with this question?
Send us your paper details now
We’ll find the best professional writer for you!

 



error: Content is protected !!