Evolution of Nursing

Nature offers many examples of specialization and collaboration. Ant colonies and bee hives are but two examples of nature’s sophisticated organizations. Each thrives because their members specialize by tasks, divide labor, and collaborate to ensure food, safety, and general well-being of the colony or hive.

Of course, humans don’t fare too badly in this regard either. And healthcare is a great example. As specialists in the collection, access, and application of data, nurse informaticists collaborate with specialists on a regular basis to ensure that appropriate data is available to make decisions and take actions to ensure the general well-being of patients. Evolution of Nursing

In this Discussion, you will reflect on your own observations of and/or experiences with informaticist collaboration. You will also propose strategies for how these collaborative experiences might be improved.

To Prepare: Evolution of Nursing

Review the Resources and reflect on the evolution of nursing informatics from a science to a nursing specialty.
Consider your experiences with nurse Informaticists or technology specialists within your healthcare organization. Evolution of Nursing

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 3

Post a description of experiences or observations about how nurse informaticists and/or data or technology specialists interact with other professionals within your healthcare organization. Suggest at least one strategy on how these interactions might be improved. Be specific and provide examples. Then, explain the impact you believe the continued evolution of nursing informatics as a specialty and/or the continued emergence of new technologies might have on professional interactions. Evolution of Nursing

APA format. rubric provided. 3 credible sources.

Mosier, Sammie, DHA, MA, BSN, NE-BC, CMSRN, BC, Roberts, Wm., Dan PhD, RN, et al. (2019). A Systems-Level Method for Developing Nursing Informatics Solutions: The Role of Executive Leadership. Journal of Nursing Administration, 49, 543-548. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000815

Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the
discussion question(s)
expectations with
re!ective 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 re!ective 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). Evolution of Nursing
One or two criteria are
not addressed or are
super”cially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking
re!ection 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
super”cially addresses
criteria.
Lacks re!ection 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: Timeliness 10 (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 Response 17 (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 e#ectively
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 e#ectively
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
e#ective 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 e#ective
professional
communication.
Responses to faculty
questions are missing.
No credible sources are
cited.
Second Response 16 (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 e#ectively
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 e#ectively
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
e#ective 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 e#ective
professional
communication.
Responses to faculty
questions are missing.
No credible sources are
cited.
Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for
participation by posting
on three di#erent days.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet
requirements for
participation by posting
on 3 di#erent days.

Grid View

List View

Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_5051_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric EXIT
Name: NURS_5051_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric
EXIT

Learning Resources-,Evolution of Nursing

Required Readings

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

Chapter 1, “Nursing Science and the Foundation of Knowledge” (pp. 7–19)
Chapter 2, “Introduction to Information, Information Science, and Information Systems” (pp. 21–33)
Chapter 3, “Computer Science and the Foundation of Knowledge Model” (pp. 35–62)

Nagle, L., Sermeus, W., & Junger, A. (2017). Evolving Role of the Nursing Infomatics Specialist. In J. Murphy, W. Goosen, & P. Weber (Eds.), Forecasting Competencies for Nurses in the Future of Connected Health (212-221). Clifton, VA: IMIA and IOS Press. Retrieved from https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_4A0FEA56B8CB.P001/REF

Sweeney, J. (2017). Healthcare informatics. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics, 21(1).

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Health Informatics and Population Health: Trends in Population Health [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Accessible player –Downloads– Download Video w/CC Download Audio Download Transcript

Credit: Provided courtesy of the Laureate International Network of Universities.

Public Health Informatics Institute. (2017). Public Health Informatics: “translating” knowledge for health [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLUygA8Hpfo