Literature Review: The Use of Clinical Systems to Improve Outcomes and Efficiencies

Question Description
New technology—and the application of existing technology—only appears in healthcare settings after careful and significant research. The stakes are high, and new clinical systems need to offer evidence of positive impact on outcomes or efficiencies.

Nurse informaticists and healthcare leaders formulate clinical system strategies. As these strategies are often based on technology trends, informaticists and others have then benefited from consulting existing research to inform their thinking.

In this Assignment, you will review existing research focused on the application of clinical systems. After reviewing, you will summarize your findings.

To Prepare:

Review the Resources and reflect on the impact of clinical systems on outcomes and efficiencies within the context of nursing practice and healthcare delivery.
Conduct a search for recent (within the last 5 years) research focused on the application of clinical systems. The research should provide evidence to support the use of one type of clinical system to improve outcomes and/or efficiencies, such as “the use of personal health records or portals to support patients newly diagnosed with diabetes.”
Identify and select 5 peer-reviewed articles from your research.
The Assignment: (4-5 pages)

In a 4- to 5-page paper, synthesize the peer-reviewed research you reviewed. Be sure to address the following:

Identify the 5 peer-reviewed articles you reviewed, citing each in APA format.
Summarize each study, explaining the improvement to outcomes, efficiencies, and lessons learned from the application of the clinical system each peer-reviewed article described. Be specific and provide examples.
RESOURCES:

https://www.healthit.gov/faq/what-electronic-health-record-ehr

https://www.himss.org/electronic-health-records

https://class.waldenu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/USW1/202050_27/MS_NURS/NURS_5051_WC/artifacts/USW1_NURS_5051_Dykes.pdf

Rao-Gupta, S., Kruger, D. Leak, L. D., Tieman, L. A., & Manworren, R. C. B. (2018). Leveraging interactive patient care technology to Improve pain management engagement. Pain Management Nursing, 19(3), 212–221. doi:10.1016/j.pmn.2017.11.002

Skiba, D. (2017). Evaluation tools to appraise social media and mobile applications. Informatics, 4(3), 32–40. doi:10.3390/informatics4030032

In a 4- to 5-page paper, synthesize the peer-reviewed research you reviewed. Be sure to address the following:
· Properly identify 5 peer-reviewed articles selected.
· Summarize each study, explaining the improvement to outcomes, efficiencies, and lessons learned from the application of the clinical system each peer-reviewed article described. Be specific and provide examples.—

Excellent 77 (77%) – 85 (85%)

The responses accurately and clearly identify 5 peer-reviewed research articles for the Assignment.

The responses accurately and thoroughly summarize in detail each study reviewed, explaining in detail the improvement to outcomes, efficiencies, and lessons learned from the application of the clinical system each peer-reviewed article described.

Specific, accurate, and detailed examples are provided which fully support the responses.

Good 68 (68%) – 76 (76%)

The responses identify 5 peer-reviewed research articles for the Assignment.

The responses summarize each study reviewed, explaining the improvement to outcomes, efficiencies, and lessons learned from the application of the clinical system each peer-reviewed article described.

Accurate examples are provided which support the responses provided.

Fair 60 (60%) – 67 (67%)

The responses vaguely or inaccurately identify 5 or less peer-reviewed articles for the Assignment.

Examples provided to support the responses are vague or inaccurate.

Poor 0 (0%) – 59 (59%)

The responses vaguely and inaccurately identify less than 5 peer-reviewed articles for the Assignment, or are missing.

The responses vaguely and inaccurately summarize each study reviewed, explaining the improvement to outcomes, efficiencies, and lessons learned from the application of the clinical system each peer-reviewed article described, or are missing.

Examples provided to support the responses are vague and inaccurate, or are missing.

Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance.—

Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%- 79% of the time.

Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.

Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation—

Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (1-2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains several (3-4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.—

Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (1-2) APA format errors.

Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains several (3-4) APA format errors.

Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)