HSN 376 Week 1: Standardized Data Entry Discussion

Description

Review the presentation from the American Medical Informatics Association about linking informatics strategies to patient outcomes.

Due Thursday

Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:

• How does standardized data entry relate to improving patient safety and improved care outcomes?
• The information in the AMIA presentation is from 2014. How has meaningful use changed since its creation?
• Provide examples from your own clinical practice, current events, or industry journals.

You’ve already rated students with this rubric. Any major changes could affect their assessment results.

Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Main Posting	50 to >44.0 pts ExcellentAnswers all parts of the Discussion question(s) 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. 44 to >39.0 pts GoodResponds 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. 39 to >34.0 pts FairResponds 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. 34 to >0 pts PoorDoes 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.	50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Main Post: Timeliness	10 to >0.0 pts ExcellentPosts main post by Day 3. 0 pts FairN/A 0 pts GoodN/A 0 pts PoorDoes not post main post by Day 3.	10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome First Response	18 to >16.0 pts ExcellentResponse exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. … 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. 16 to >14.0 pts GoodResponse 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. 14 to >12.0 pts FairResponse 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. 12 to >0 pts PoorResponse 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.	18 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Second Response	17 to >15.0 pts ExcellentResponse exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. … 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 to >13.0 pts GoodResponse 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 to >11.0 pts FairResponse 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. 11 to >0 pts PoorResponse 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.	17 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Participation	5 to >0.0 pts ExcellentMeets requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. 0 pts FairN/A 0 pts GoodN/A 0 pts PoorDoes not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.	5 pts
Total Points: 100