Discuss two articles on information systems

Discuss two articles on information systems ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Discuss two articles on information systems Discuss two articles on information systems best practices in a three page essay. Discuss some of the key issues to be aware of and the best practices to mitigate them. Discuss two articles on information systems Discuss strategic analysis decisions in the next five years, what we need to watch out for in the information technology (IT) field, and how these decisions will impact the overall company. Examine potential changes in IT related to innovation and organizational processes. List and describe internal (online) information security risks and mitigation tactics and how they will affect decision-making strategies. List and describe external (building) information security risks and mitigation tactics and how they will affect decision-making strategies. Your scholarly activity submission must be at least three pages in length. You are required to use at least one outside source to support your explanation. All sources used must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations and be cited per APA guidelines. Your scholarly activity should be formatted in accordance with APA style. contentserver.pdf contentserver__1_.pdf unitviii__1_.pdf Dryden-Palmer et al. BMC Health Services Research https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4935-y (2020) 20:81 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Context, complexity and process in the implementation of evidence-based innovation: a realist informed review K. D. Dryden-Palmer1,2,3*, C. S. Parshuram1,2,3 and W. B. Berta1 Abstract Background: This review of scholarly work in health care knowledge translation advances understanding of implementation components that support the complete and timely integration of new knowledge. We adopt a realist approach to investigate what is known from the current literature about the impact of, and the potential relationships between, context, complexity and implementation process. Methods: Informed by two distinct pathways, knowledge utilization and knowledge translation, we utilize Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory (DOI) and Harvey and Kitson’s integrated- Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Service framework (PARIHS) to ground this review. Articles from 5 databases; Medline, Scopus, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Google Scholar and a search of authors were retrieved. Themes and patterns related to these implementation components were extracted. Literature was selected for inclusion by consensus. Data extraction was iterative and was moderated by the authors. Results: A total of 67 articles were included in the review. Context was a central component to implementation. It was not clear how and to what extent context impacted implementation. Complexity was found to be a characteristic of context, implementation process, innovations and a product of the relationship between these three elements. Social processes in particular were reported as influential however; descriptions of how these social process impact were limited. Multiple theoretical and operational models were found to ground implementation processes. We offer an emerging conceptual model to illustrate the key discoveries. Conclusions: The review findings indicate there are dynamic relationship between context, complexity and implementation process for enhancing uptake of evidence-based knowledge in hospital settings. These are represented in a conceptual model. Limited empiric evidence was found to explain the nature of the relationships. Keywords: Implementation, knowledge translation, evidence utilization, context, complexity, health care, innovation Background Clinicians and health services researchers are highly proficient at generating new evidence to inform health care and are notably less effective at moving that new knowledge into practice, thus missing the potential of that research to enhance clinical practice [1, 2]. Persistent calls from implementation scientists and practitioners seek research that contributes to a better * Correspondence: karen.dryden-palmer@sickkids.ca 1 Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada 2 Critical Care Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto M5G 1X8, Canada Full list of author information is available at the end of the article understanding of implementation approaches; specifically, understanding why some efforts to implement evidence-based innovation uptake succeed while others fail [2–4]. This review responds to these calls. There is a large volume and scope of literature describing and evaluating knowledge translation and implementation. Multiple terms have been identified to describe the process of moving research-based knowledge into practice [2, 5]. For our review we selected the term knowledge translation to best describe implementation activities in the acute hospital setting. Knowledge translation is the exchange, synthesis and application of evidenced-based knowledge within complex systems [6, © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionDiscuss two articles on information systems 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Dryden-Palmer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2020) 20:81 7]. In order for knowledge translation to occur knowledge users must be exposed to the new knowledge (typically in the form of an innovation) and an intentional mechanism to move that knowledge into practice must be activated. That mechanism is comprised of processes by which the evidenced-based knowledge is intentionally integrated into practice [8]. Hospital settings are often challenging for operationalizing these processes and despite the clear benefits afforded by that new evidence-based knowledge evidence alone is insufficient to catalyze behavior change in health care providers [4, 9–11]. In this review we look closely at specific elements of implementation in hospital settings and explore context, complexity and process, as they related to acute health care implementation. We seek to discover what is known from the literature about the role of context, complexity and process and understand how each might influence the others in the implementation of evidence-based clinical interventions in acute health care settings. The decision to focus on these three concepts in knowledge translation reflects that each has been acknowledged as influential in health care implementation and each have practical implications for implementers and knowledge users alike (clinicians, administrators, educators) [8]. Context is recognized as an influential component in the uptake of new evidence [12–15]. It has been endorsed as a central construct in conceptual frameworks for implementation such as the PARIHS framework [3]. Context includes the environment or setting in which the proposed innovation is implemented and characteristics associated with that practice setting [1, 16]. There is no fully consolidated understanding of how contextual modifies or impacts implementation. There have been many calls for rigorous methods to identify how implementation approaches could be applied with sensitivity to differing contextual elements [17, 18]. We respond to these calls and highlight context as a key component in this review. Complexity is acknowledged as a component of the evidence and the resulting innovations (innovation complexity), the implementation processes for the integration of innovations (implementation complexity) as well as a characteristic of the health care environment (context complexity). Innovation complexity occurs when the desire practice change involves multiple steps, multiple stakeholders, and the need for actions across group and teams in an organization [19]. It can also reflect the degree of difficulty in understanding and operationalizing the desired knowledge user behaviours [20]. Implementation complexity reflects the processes and interventions initiated to operationalize the new knowledge into practice. Multiple knowledge users, the Page 2 of 15 presence of tightly held existing practices, multidimensional or interdependent user relationships and diverse settings within an organization contribute to this complexity [14, 21, 22]. Discuss two articles on information systems Complexity arising from the health care setting in which the implementation activities are situated is ‘context complexity’. Health care organizations are proposed to be amongst the most complex of environments for knowledge translation [19]. Hierarchical reporting structures, multiple local practice cultures, disciplinary cultures and norms, external influences (political, legislative) all contribute to this complexity [23, 24]. These complexities can render implementation outcomes vulnerable to modification, erosion, incomplete uptake and a return to pre- implementation behaviours [25]. The final concept of focus in this review is process. Process describe the way(s) evidence is introduced and facilitated to be taken up in practice [26]. In health care innovation these process are the implementation activities that express the attitudes, beliefs and ways of working of individuals and groups of knowledge users [1]. Process is both the formal and informal mechanisms used to support the application of the innovation and the resulting practice changes [27]. Processes are active across all phases of implementation; pre-implementation, early, active, late and post implementation actions and serve to facilitate and consolidate new provider behaviors [28]. Knowledge translation theories grounding this review theories were drawn from two similar yet distinct conceptualizations of how evidence is moved into practice; 1] research utilization and 2] knowledge translation [29]. Research utilization is informed by Roger’s Diffusion of Innovations theory and describes knowledge generation and translation as relatively context-free [4]. In this pathway evidence-based knowledge is generated independent of the users and the intended setting for use. Movement is unidirectional and predominately linear and proceeds in a stepwise fashion. These steps include awareness of the new evidence, followed by learning, trialing and deciding to adopt, reject or modify that evidence and finally reinforcing the decision. The implementation in this model is thought to be impacted by the qualities of the innovation itself (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, observability, flexibility), factors associated with the environment where the introduction of the innovation is taking place (fit to existing system, readiness for change), and the influences of the context and social system in which the change is taking place (resources linkages, central and externalized networks, relationships, champions, opinion leaders). This theory acknowledges the complexity of implementation of evidenced-based innovation and that context and process influence diffusion in a logical sequence [4, Dryden-Palmer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2020) 20:81 30]. This pathway has been widely studied in nursing and medicine [3, 31]. The second knowledge translation pathway is informed by Kitson’s PARIHS framework that emphasizes an exchange and synthesis of knowledge leading to innovation adoption [3, 8]. This framework highlights the main constructs of evidence, context, facilitation and recipients [3]. In this framework evidence is broadly inclusive of both research generated and experiential knowledge. Movement of evidence into practice is described as non-linear and is influenced by a multitude of factors that interact in sometimes unpredictable ways [32]. These factors exist within the ‘context’ construct whereas ‘facilitation’ captures the active processes that integrate and connect the remaining three. PARIHS acknowledges that evidence-based innovations are fitted with intentional consideration of the context for application and highlights the role of evidence users and their role in implementation. This knowledge translation pathway suggests that the evidence-informed innovation and the context of application co-evolve over time. Methods We used a modified realist-informed review methodology to investigate what is known from the literature about the impact of, and the potential relationship between context, complexity and processes [33]. Discuss two articles on information systems Realist review is an explanatory approach designed to explore the ‘how and why’ of a complex phenomenon, why things work – or don’t work in a particular context or setting. We applied a realist lens in order to explore a broad scope of evidence such that we might surface emerging trends, gaps and expose both known and unknown impacts of these elements on hospital knowledge translation and implementation. A realist perspective is suited to answering questions of how, Page 3 of 15 for whom and under what circumstances do context, complexity and process impact health care knowledge translation and is a suitable approach for this broad inquiry. The realist-informed perspective is aligned with our interest in the interrelatedness of the concepts and creates opportunities to uncover unanticipated consequences and relationships. We synthesised the findings into a relational representation of the main constructs however did not extend our review to included theory testing. We applied a modified five-step approach; planning that describes the search scope and question refinement, searching that identifies the search methods, combined the mapping and appraisal steps to report on findings, and lastly a synthesis for discussion that expands on the implications, value and limitations of the review [33]. 1] Planning: First we refined the scope for the review to focus on implementation research relevant to the three concepts and to the acute care setting [25, 33]. An exploratory search grounded in the two theoretical pathways was executed in MEDLINE database, results were reviewed and search terms refined. Table 1 contains the search terms. 2] Searching: Searches of 5 electronic of databases and online sources including: MEDLINE (CINAHL), Scopus, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were carried out with an experienced academic health services librarian. Electronic searches were limited to English language and full text availability. An author search was conducted targeting specific scholars in the knowledge translation and implementation fields as identified by the senior reviewer and through discussion with local knowledge translation scientists. Further searches of the Joanna Briggs and McMaster University knowledge translation web sites were carried out. The searches were carried out in 2015 and refreshed in 2017. Table 1 Search Terms Search Item Exploratory Theoretical Pathways Refined search Knowledge Translation Search Terms knowledge translation, research utilization knowledge translation, knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, knowledge dissemination, knowledge application, knowledge cycle, delivery. Knowledge management Research Utilization research; utilization, transfer, translational; science, medicine, implementation science Complexity complex, complexity, complex interventions Knowledge Translation Interventions implementation, barriers, facilitators, guidelines, interventions, education, continuing education, coach, champions, change leader knowledge broker, audit and feedback Context acute care, hospital Process change, adoption, innovation adoption, program change, research-practice gap, behavioral change, reform Authors Straus, S., Greenhalgh, T., Graham, I., Grimshaw, J., Berta, W., Kitson, A., Estabrooks, C., Logan, J., Rogers, E., Pettigrew, M., Pawson, R., Grol, R., Fineout-Overholt, Raycroft-Malone, J. Additional terms in final search knowledge use, policies, spread, quality improvement, best practice, organization, system, integrate, (removed learning) Dryden-Palmer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2020) 20:81 Electronic search results were loaded into End Note 7.0 for cataloging. Preliminary screening of returned articles for duplicate and non-English documents was conducted. Discuss two articles on information systems The remaining citations were compiled in a screening document, for inspection by the three reviewers. Articles were screened for inclusion of the concepts such that one of 4 criteria were met; 1] the article addresses context, 2] the innovation or the setting is complex, 3] the article addresses complexity, and 4] there are process measures or discussion of process. Outcomes of implementations were not in scope for this review. Studies situated in the developed world were selected to best represent the context of contemporary acute health care settings and publications from 1997 onwards due to the sharp increase in publications in the field at that time. Both theoretical and empirical work was included. We excluded educational program reports, individual level learning reports, simple innovations information technology projects as well as any remaining duplicates, books, book chapters and conference proceedings. Eligibility criteria were applied to the remaining documents (Table 2). Additional file 1 provides the complete search strategies by database. 3] Mapping: Each abstract was screened independently by 2 of the 3 reviewers. Articles without abstracts were reviewed as full text. Consistent with recommend realist review methodology the quality of the studies was attended to in terms of ‘fit’ to the review purpose and no explicit quality ranking was pursued. Realist reviews focus on relevance of included articles to establish usefulness in the context Page 4 of 15 of the specific question at hand rather than the application of formal study design quality criteria [25]. A sample of ten articles (approx15%) were screened and compared by all three reviewers to check internal constancy within the group and to clarify interpretation of fit and application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction of eligible studies proceeded in two phases. The first review abstracted the articles for study type (empirical, theoretical, opinion or review), method (if applicable), main focus and findings. The second phase of abstraction involved a re-reading of each article for findings that addressed context, complexity and process. Findings were then grouped into themes for further analysis. Analysis was constant and comparative in phase two such that emerging findings in the new data initiated a further analysis for similar and disparate data in the previously reviewed items. Results The initial search referred a total of 338 electronic references for inclusion and 111 citations were removed after sorting to remove duplicates, conference proceedings, book chapter and books, The remaining 227 references were prepared for abstract screening and a total of 96 citations were included for full text screening. After full text review was completed 36 references were excluded and 60 articles remained for appraisal. The subsequent refreshing of the searches in 2017 added 7 articles for a total of 67. Figure 1 shows the flow of the search through screening and article selection. Table 2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Context /setting: Health care focus and acute care setting No health care focus, non-acute care setting Level of measure: Minimum one organization measure No discussion/measures/outcomes at organizational level Addresses a knowledge translation innovation: Yes No Has evidence of complexity: Multiple stakeholders Involves actions of multiple people/teams Chains or steps in a process Non-liner processes Embedded in social systems Prone to modification or change Does not meet complexity criteria Location: Developed world Stable health care system-comparable to Canadian system acute care Developing world, health care context without stable health care infrastructure Intervention types: Multi, program or complex innovation(s) Single or simple innovations/or technology product Study/publication types: Empirical, theoretical, expert opinion, reviews Conference proceedings, books and book chapters, unpublished work Accessibility: English language, retrievable Non-English, non-retrievable Addresses factors of interest: Context, complexity and process Does not address context, complexity and process Dryden-Palmer et al. BMC Health Services Research (2020) 20:81 Page 5 of 15 Fig. 1 Search and Section Process: This diagram outlines the process of article review and selection for inclusion in analysis 3] Appraisal: There was wide representation from multiple health care disciplines and health services with a total of 42 journal titles represent … Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10