Grand Canyon University Healthcare Technology Trends Analysis Paper

Grand Canyon University Healthcare Technology Trends Analysis Paper Grand Canyon University Healthcare Technology Trends Analysis Paper Throughout history, technological advancements have appeared for one purpose before finding applications elsewhere that lead to spikes in its usage and development. The internet, for example, was originally developed to share research before becoming a staple of work and entertainment. But technology—new and repurposed—will undoubtedly continue to be a driver of healthcare information. Informaticists often stay tuned to trends to monitor what the next new technology will be or how the next new idea for applying existing technology can benefit outcomes. In this Discussion, you will reflect on your healthcare organization’s use of technology and offer a technology trend you observe in your environment. To Prepare: Reflect on the Resources related to digital information tools and technologies. Consider your healthcare organization’s use of healthcare technologies to manage and distribute information. Grand Canyon University Healthcare Technology Trends Analysis Paper Reflect on current and potential future trends, such as use of social media and mobile applications/telehealth, Internet of Things (IoT)-enabled asset tracking, or expert systems/artificial intelligence, and how they may impact nursing practice and healthcare delivery. By Day 3 of Week 6 Post a brief description of general healthcare technology trends, particularly related to data/information you have observed in use in your healthcare organization or nursing practice. Describe any potential challenges or risks that may be inherent in the technologies associated with these trends you described. Then, describe at least one potential benefit and one potential risk associated with data safety, legislation, and patient care for the technologies you described. Next, explain which healthcare technology trends you believe are most promising for impacting healthcare technology in nursing practice and explain why. Describe whether this promise will contribute to improvements in patient care outcomes, efficiencies, or data management. Be specific and provide examples. By Day 6 of Week 6 Respond to at least two of your colleagues * on two different days , offering additional/alternative ideas regarding opportunities and risks related to the observations shared. I WILL POST CLASSMATES POST IN A WEEK, THIS ASSIGNMENT IS NOT DUE UNTIL APRIL 1. I WILL ATTACH AN EXAMPLE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT DONE BY SOMEBODY ELSE. ALSO YOU CAN WRITE ABOUT HOSPITAL TECHNOLOGY, THAT MIGHT BE THE EASIEST. Sources Available for use- You may use others if you find better information Source 1- Dykes (attached) Dykes, P. C., Rozenblum, R., Dalal, A., Massaro, A., Chang, F., Clements, M., Collins, S. …Bates, D. W. (2017). Prospective evaluation of a multifaceted intervention to improve outcomes in intensive care: The Promoting Respect and Ongoing Safety Through Patient Engagement Communication and Technology Study. Critical Care Medicine, 45 (8), e806–e813. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000002449. Source 2- HealthIT HealthIT.gov. (2018c). What is an electronic health record (EHR)? Retrieved from https://www.healthit.gov/faq/what-electronic-health-record-ehr. Grand Canyon University Healthcare Technology Trends Analysis Paper Click: https://www.healthit.gov/faq/what-electronic-health-record-ehr Source 3 Healthcare Information Management and Systems Society. (2018). Electronic health records. Retrieved from https://www.himss.org/library/ehr/. Click: https://www.himss.org/electronic-health-records example_.docx source_1_dykes_pdf.pdf ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS Telehealth is a method for providing healthcare services remotely by telephone or video to improve efficiency and patient access to healthcare (Patti & Denise, 2019). Within the last 10 years, the healthcare industry has seen significant development in information technology that is anticipated to expand even more (El-Miedany, 2017). In 2015, my previous employer Virtua hospital selected Teladoc services to provide telemedicine services 24 hours a day for patients in wellness centers, primary care provider services, multiple hospitals, outpatient centers, and a variety of facilities, with access to board-certified physicians (Teladoc, 2015). This on-demand remote medical care via telephone and video conferencing technology gives patients the opportunity to speak with board-certified physicians that can diagnose problems such as respiratory infections, flu, allergy, UTIs, or skin issues anytime or place As home-based telehealth systems develop, observing patients’ outlook on Teladoc’s range of capabilities can be a potential challenge. Certain challenges such as technological restrictions and being monitored at home can make individuals feel less in control. While traditional care involves direct primary care provider to patient communication, Teladoc can shift the responsibility toward the patient and may compromise patient satisfaction that may impact cost-effectiveness and clinical benefits (Rosemary,2012). Teladoc also requires the patient to have the readiness to learn and frequently access a different approach to healthcare delivery. In contrast, numerous potential benefits can arise from telehealth such as decreasing resource utilization while lowering cost. For example, a patient with COPD can be monitored at home more closely with the proper equipment to lessen hospital readmissions, decrease visits from the primary care provider or nurse. The client can be enrolled in Teladoc’s home telehealth for respiratory management with access to board-certified physicians 24 hours a day. The potential risk associated with data safety, legislation, and patient care is patients with physical disabilities, those computer illiterate, or hacking into the software. General healthcare technology trends such as telehealth are conforming into a more apparent industry with a continuation into some healthcare providers’ offices, hospitals, clinics, and even health plans. Telehealth has the potential ability to deliver quicker, improved, costeffective, and more beneficial care. As a result of having 24/7 direct access to vital information about conditions, prevention, and treatments, this can enhance patient control, autonomy, and impact satisfaction that will contribute to improvements in patient care outcomes, efficiencies and data management. References El-Miedany Y. (2017). Telehealth and telemedicine: how the digital era is changing standard health care. Smart Homecare Technology and TeleHealth, 43. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohostcom.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsdoj&AN=edsd oj.0dc43a806394007b99e40e192176207&site=eds-live&scope=site Patti A., M., & L. Denise, W. (2019). Telehealth nursing: More than just a phone call. Nursing, (4), 11. https://doiorg.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1097/01.NURSE.0000553272.16933.4b Rosemary, C. (2012). Exploring the benefits and challenges of telehealth. Nursing Times, (24), 16. Retrieved from https://searchebscohostcom.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsovi&AN=edso vi.00006203.201206120.00003&site=eds-live&scope=site Teladoc, I. (8AD, March 2015). Virtua Selects Teladoc to Provide Telehealth Services. Business Wire (English). Retrieved from https://searchebscohostcom.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=bizwire. c63367334&site=eds-live&scope=site Prospective Evaluation of a Multifaceted Intervention to Improve Outcomes in Intensive Care: The Promoting Respect and OngoingGrand Canyon University Healthcare Technology Trends Analysis Paper Safety Through Patient Engagement Communication and Technology Study* Patricia C. Dykes, PhD, RN1,2; Ronen Rozenblum, PhD1,2; Anuj Dalal, MD1,2; Anthony Massaro, MD1,2; Frank Chang, MSE1; Marsha Clements, MSN, RN1; Sarah Collins, PhD, RN1,2; Jacques Donze, MD1; Maureen Fagan, DNP, RN1; Priscilla Gazarian PhD, RN1; John Hanna, BS1; Lisa Lehmann, MD1,2; Kathleen Leone, MBA, RN1; Stuart Lipsitz, ScD1,2; Kelly McNally, BS1; Conny Morrison, BA1; Lipika Samal, MD, MSc1,2; Eli Mlaver, BA1; Kumiko Schnock, PhD1,2; Diana Stade BA1; Deborah Williams, BA1; Catherine Yoon, MPH1; David W. Bates, MD, MSc1,2 *See also p. 1424. Center for Patient Safety, Research and Practice, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA. 2 Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02258594. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s website (http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal). Supported, in part, by The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Dr. Dykes’s institution received funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF). Dr. Rozenblum’s institution received funding from the GBMF; he disclosed that he is a cofounder of Hospitech Respiration; and he disclosed work for hire. Dr. Dalal’s institution received funding from the GBMF. Dr. Massaro’s institution received funding from the GBMF and from Risk Management Foundation Insurance Company. Dr. Chang received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Clements’ institution received funding from the GBMF. Dr. Collins’ institution received funding from the GBMF, from research grants funded by Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, and research contracts funded by the Food and Drug Administration and ASPR. Dr. Donze’s institution received funding from the GBMF, and he received funding from Swiss National Science Foundation. Dr. Gazarian’s institution received funding from the GBMF. Dr. Hanna disclosed work for hire. Dr. Lehmann’s institution received funding from the GBMF. Dr. Morrison’s institution received funding from the GBMF. Dr. Samal’s institution received funding from the GBMF. Dr. Schnock’s institution received funding from the GBMF, and she received support for article research from the GBMF. Dr. Bates’ institution received funding from the GBMF; he received funding from SEA Medical, Intensix, EarlySense, QPID, Zynx, CDI (Negev), Enelgy, ValeraHealth, and MDClone; and he disclosed that he is a coinventor on Patent No. 6029138 held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital on the use of decision support software for medical management, licensed to the Medicalis Corporation, where he holds a minority equity position. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest. 1 Copyright © 2017 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002449 e806 www.ccmjournal.org Address requests for reprints to: Patricia C. Dykes, PhD, RN, Center for Patient Safety, Research and Practice, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 1620 Tremont St., Boston, MA. E-mail: pdykes@bwh.harvard.edu Objectives: Studies comprehensively assessing interventions to improve team communication and to engage patients and care partners in ICUs are lacking. This study examines the effectiveness of a patient-centered care and engagement program in the medical ICU. Design: Prospective intervention study. Setting: Medical ICUs at large tertiary care center. Patients: Two thousand one hundred five patient admissions (1,030 before and 1,075 during the intervention) from July 2013 to May 2014 and July 2014 to May 2015. Interventions: Structured patient-centered care and engagement training program and web-based technology including ICU safety checklist, tools to develop shared care plan, and messaging platform. Patient and care partner access to online portal to view health information, participate in the care plan, and communicate with providers. Measurements and Main Results: Grand Canyon University Healthcare Technology Trends Analysis Paper Primary outcome was aggregate adverse event rate. Secondary outcomes included patient and care partner satisfaction, care plan concordance, and resource utilization. We included 2,105 patient admissions, (1,030 baseline and 1,075 during intervention periods). The aggregate rate of adverse events fell 29%, from 59.0 per 1,000 patient days (95% CI, 51.8–67.2) to 41.9 per 1,000 patient days (95% CI, 36.3–48.3; p < 0.001), during the intervention period. Satisfaction improved markedly from an overall hospital rating of 71.8 (95% CI, 61.1–82.6) to 93.3 (95% CI, 88.2–98.4; p < 0.001) for patients and from 84.3 (95% CI, 81.3– 87.3) to 90.0 (95% CI, 88.1–91.9; p < 0.001) for care partners. No change in care plan concordance or resource utilization. August 2017 • Volume 45 • Number 8 Copyright © 2017 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Online Clinical Investigations Conclusions: Implementation of a structured team communication and patient engagement program in the ICU was associated with a reduction in adverse events and improved patient and care partner satisfaction. (Crit Care Med 2017; 45:e806–e813) Key Words: checklist; medical errors; medical informatics; patientcentered care; patient engagement I CU hospitalizations can be frightening and may have longterm consequences for patients including posttraumatic stress disorder (1). Furthermore, patients cared for in ICUs are particularly vulnerable to adverse events (AEs) (2). Although checklists have been found to be effective in reducing specific types of AEs in critical care, preventable AEs still frequently occur (2). Recent literature suggests that the ICU experience could be safer if care were more patient-centered and if patients could be engaged more effectively (3). Active partnerships among health professionals, patients, and families can improve the quality, safety, and delivery of healthcare (4). Evidence indicates that patient engagement affects self-management, treatment adherence, satisfaction, and healthcare costs (5). However, intensive care is a difficult environment in which to engage patients—because most patients are critically ill and many are incapacitated (6). Yet, patients and families want to be actively involved, and many patients have a “care partner.” Care partners can be a family member or friend who works with the patient to engage with the healthcare team even when the patient is not physically able. A care partner helps with care navigation including communication with providers, asking for clarity around complex issues, letting the team know about patient preferences, and facilitating follow-up on unresolved issues (7). Operationally, patient engagement in the ICU may include participation in rounds, communication about values and goals, and protection of individual respect and dignity (4). Interprofessional communication related to the patient’s goals and care plan occurs during patient rounds. Previous studies focusing on provider members of the care team indicate that a standardized interprofessional rounding structure facilitated by electronic health record (EHR) data and checklist tools is associated with improved adherence with the standard of care, patient outcomes, and provider satisfaction (8, 9). Earlier work at our institution highlights the importance of engaging with patients and care partners to identify goals of care and to jointly assess the effectiveness of treatment in meeting goals and restoring life (10). However, the use of health information technology (IT) to support integrated patient-centered model of team communication in the ICU, characterized by shared checklists, health information, and goals across team members has not been reported. Patient portals are another way to promote engagement and enhance patient-provider partnerships (11). The type of information included in patient portals varies markedly by site (12). Portal content can range from EHR data (laboratory results, medications, problems) to patient education and self-management tools. With patient permission, Critical Care Medicine care partners can access their portal. Outpatient portals have been shown to improve patient-provider communication and patient satisfaction (13). However, the use of portals in hospitals, especially in the ICU, has been limited (14). Despite evidence that health IT and patient-centered care can improve safety and outcomes, little research has assessed interventions that leverage health IT to improve team communication while engaging patients and care partners in the ICU. Therefore, we designed an intervention and conducted a prospective study to assess the effect of a patient-centered care and engagement program enabled by health IT on care delivered in the ICU. METHODS This prospective pre-post study was conducted in two medical ICUs (MICUs) at a large tertiary care center from July 1, 2013, through June 8, 2014 (baseline period), and from July 1, 2014, through May 29, 2015 (intervention period). Implementation of the intervention, including training, was completed by June 30, 2014. Grand Canyon University Healthcare Technology Trends Analysis Paper The institutional review board approved the study protocol. Study Unit Descriptions and Patient Eligibility Both MICUs operate using a “closed” model, whereby the critical care team maintained responsibility for all patients on the unit (15). The ICU staff (physicians and nurses) rotated on both units. Each unit had a physician team comprised of an attending physician, critical care fellows, interns, and residents. There was 24-hour attending-level coverage for each unit, and physician and nursing staff worked 12-hour shifts. Residents rotated in 2-week blocks. Physician and nurse staffing ratios and work schedules were the same during the 11 months of baseline and intervention data collection periods. Any patient 18 years old or older and admitted to the ICU for 24 hours or longer was eligible to participate. Preintervention Period Attending physicians, fellows, residents, and nurses participated in daily rounds and used existing paper (safety checklist, nursing flow sheet, care plan) and electronic tools (computerized provider order entry, laboratory/test results, medication administration record). There was no preexisting standardized approach for team communication or patient engagement. During rounds, the team verbally reviewed a paper-based safety checklist that included prompts for standard safety elements (16). Intervention The Promoting Respect and Ongoing Safety through Patient Engagement Communication and Technology (PROSPECT) intervention was a systems-based patient-centered care and engagement program that was introduced to providers (physicians and nurses) to enhance their responsiveness to patients and care partners (Fig. 1; Appendix A, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/CCM/C605). The intervention consisted of the following components: 1) a 60-minute training session that introduced the Patient SatisfActive Model that included structured patient-centered care training to enhance www.ccmjournal.org e807 Copyright © 2017 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Dykes et al Figure 1. The PROSPECT (Promoting Respect and Ongoing Safety through Patient Engagement Communication and Technology) intervention included 1) a nontechnical structured patient-centered care and engagement model (Patient SatisfActive Model) and 2) a web-based technology to facilitate communication and to engage patients/care partners with providers in their care plan. Providers (physicians, nurses) received structured patient-centered care and engagement training using the Patient SatisfActive Model and a web-based patient-centered toolkit comprised of an ICU safety checklist, shared patient and provider care planning and messaging platform. Providers accessed the toolkit via mobile and desktop devices. Patients/care partners were given access to a portal via iPads (Apple, Cupertino, CA) to view health information, participate in the care plan, and communicate with providers. Detailed information about the PROSPECT intervention components is included in Appendix A (Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww. com/CCM/C605). responsiveness to the needs, concerns, and expectations of patients and care partners and interactive training on the use of a web-based toolkit to facilitate team communication and patient engagement (Appendixes B1, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/CCM/C606; Appendix B2, Supplemental Digital Content 3, http://links.lww.com/CCM/ C607). 2) A web-based toolkit including a) an ICU safety checklist prepopulated with real-time EHR data, b) shared patient and provider care planning tools, and c) a messaging platform for communicating with providers and patients. The webbased toolkit was used by providers for all patients during the intervention period. In addition, all patients and care partners received the Patient SatisfActive Model in which nurses asked patients at admission, during each shift, and at time of ICU discharge about their perceived needs, concerns, and expectations. Patient wishes were routinely discussed by the team during interprofessional rounds and were integrated into the daily care plan as needed. Patients capable of providing informed consent (or proxy) were eligible to use the patient portal accessible on hospital-issued iPads (iPad Air; Apple, Cupertino, CA) available at every patient’s bedside to view personal health information, to participate in developing the care plan, and to communicate with providers. Research assistants approached eligible patients (or proxy) to participate in using the portal. Grand Canyon University Healthcare Technology Trends Analysis Paper The informed consent process was extensive (i.e., a 10-page informed consent and access authorization form). Once enrolled, patients/proxies were shown how to use the portal and could access the portal throughout their stay in the MICU. Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome was the aggregate rate per 1,000 patient days of selected AEs, defined as failed processes of care and/ or unintended consequences of medical care that can lead to e808 www.ccmjournal.org patient harm (2, 17). To avoid outcomes ascertainment bias, we included only those AEs that are routinely reported within established organizational surveillance processes (and therefore captured and vetted independently of the study team): falls, pressure ulcers, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, central catheter-associated bloodstream infections, and ventilator-associated events. Secondary outcomes were patient and care partner satisfaction, care plan concordance (e.g., agreement on the care plan) between the patient and providers, and healthcare utilization. Secondary outcome data were collected in REDCap (18) using organizational reporting systems. Validated survey instruments were administered with verbal consent to a randomly selected subsample of patients (19) care partners (20), and providers to assess care plan concordance (21, 22). Patient satisfaction data were collected through telephone using the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) (23) survey 6 weeks after discharge. Hospitalized patients (or a care partner) as well as their bedside nurse and a physician were interviewed at least 48 hours into admission using a validated care plan concordance assessment tool (22) modified to include the patient’s key recovery goal (24). Outcome measure definitions, surveys, and data sources are included in Table 1. Process measures included the number of patients/care partners who provided informed consent to use the patient portal. Statistical Analysis Based on previously reported AE rates (2) and the effect of communication interventions (8) in critic … Purchase answer to see full attachment Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool’s honor code & terms of service . Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10