MSN Writing Services

NURS FPX 5005 Assessment 4 Patient Care Technology

Student Name Capella University NURS-FPX 5005 Introduction to Nursing Research, Ethics, and Technology Prof. Name Date Analysis of Technology in Nursing Practice This paper delves into diverse aspects of technology in patient care, exploring its applications, advantages, and challenges. Focusing on electronic health records (EHRs), the study examines their implications for patient care and nursing practice, covering utility, benefits, limitations, and ethical/regulatory considerations. Effects of Technology on Patient Care and Nursing Practice EHRs, digitized repositories of patients’ medical data accessible through healthcare organizations’ computer systems or mobile devices, serve as comprehensive guardians of medical histories. These histories include diagnostic information, treatment plans, allergies, infections, laboratory findings, billing details, radiology images, vaccination records, and physical/mental health indicators (Grewal et al., 2019). Effects on Patient Care EHRs expedite and enhance patient treatment, enabling nursing staff to quickly discern patients’ needs, facilitating more effective clinical interventions (Abul-Husn & Kenny, 2019). EHRs systematically aggregate and disseminate patient data to all caregivers, ensuring comprehensive information sharing. Effects on Nursing Practice Nursing professionals view EHRs as tools to contextualize patient data and facilitate interprofessional communication, especially for patients in critical conditions or under close observation (Wisner et al., 2019). Accessed through a secure portal, EHRs empower nurses to efficiently retrieve patient information, leading to improved intervention planning. Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages Drawbacks Concerns about malpractice liability, high implementation costs, and potential decreases in overall productivity (Upadhyay & Hu, 2020). Communication of Data EHRs facilitate structured and unstructured communication channels. Structured pathways, like computerized provider entry (CPOE), convey medication and allergy information, while unstructured pathways employ clinical notes (Zhang et al., 2020). Additionally, EHRs contribute to secure communication by integrating encryption algorithms into conventional medical cloud models. Identifying Criteria to Evaluate Data EHRs benefit from the commercialization and development of 5G technology, enabling nurses to communicate with patients via messages, emails, or phone calls from anywhere. Healthcare organizations establish online portals to engage patients, particularly those from remote areas, collecting and evaluating patient data before disseminating it to the broader medical team (Zhang et al., 2020). Controls and Safeguards to Maintain Patient Safety and Confidentiality Modern technologies deepen patient-staff communication and access to intervention updates, enhancing the nursing staff’s understanding of patients’ conditions. Safeguarding data involves granting portal access credentials to relatives or family members of patients with mental or visual impairments (Lee, 2017). Privacy concerns necessitate open dialogues with patients to prevent unauthorized data use. Proper staff training in data storage and monitoring is essential to ethically optimize patient health information within EHRs. Evidence-Based Strategies to Improve the Application of Patient Care Technology The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 mandates national standards to protect patients’ medical information from unauthorized disclosure (Shachar, 2022). Compliance with HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules ensures patient consent before data disclosure, enhancing patient care technology by improving health insurance portability and safety standards. Conclusion Patient care technology is pivotal in healthcare, fostering communication between healthcare organizations and patients through devices like blood pressure monitors, blood glucose monitors, and patient location trackers. While offering benefits, challenges such as staff training, data security, and patient privacy considerations must be addressed for ethical and effective utilization. References Abul-Husn, N. S., & Kenny, E. E. (2019). Personalized medicine and the power of Electronic Health Records. Cell, 177(1), 58–69. Bani Issa, W., Al Akour, I., Ibrahim, A., Almarzouqi, A., Abbas, S., Hisham, F., & Griffiths, J. (2020). Privacy, confidentiality, security, and patient safety concerns about Electronic Health Records. International Nursing Review, 67(2), 218–230. Grewal, D., Hulland, J., Kopalle, P. K., & Karahanna, E. (2019). The future of technology and marketing: A multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(1), 1–8. NURS FPX 5005 Assessment 4 Patient Care Technology Lee, L. M. (2017). Ethics and subsequent use of Electronic Health Record data. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 71, 143–146. Shachar, C. (2022). HIPAA, privacy, and reproductive rights in a Post-Roe era. JAMA, 328(5), 417. Upadhyay, S., & Hu, H. (2020). Clinicians’ lived experiences on the impact of Electronic Health Records (EHR) on quality and safety. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020(1), 12928. Wisner, K., Lyndon, A., & Chesla, C. A. (2019). The Electronic Health Record’s impact on nurses’ cognitive work: An integrative review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 94, 74–84. NURS FPX 5005 Assessment 4 Patient Care Technology Zhang, J., Liu, H., & Ni, L. (2020). A secure energy-saving communication and encrypted storage model based on RC4 for EHR. IEEE Access, 8, 38995–39012.

NURS FPX 5005 Assessment 3 Evidence-based Practice in Nursing

Student Name Capella University NURS-FPX 5005 Introduction to Nursing Research, Ethics, and Technology Prof. Name Date Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing Nurses devote a substantial portion of their time to critically assess and evaluate the quality of patient care within the dynamic healthcare environment. Continually adapting to evolving patient circumstances and staying abreast of medical advancements, treatments, and literature is crucial. Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) serves as the framework for assessing and evaluating recent innovations, best practices, and emerging literature to establish state-of-the-art inpatient care (Alatawi et al., 2020). EBP integrates external evidence, clinical expertise, patient values, and critical evaluation. New approaches to nursing practice are appraised based on external evidence, personal experience, and patient feedback. External evidence comprises clinically substantiated and contemporary literature, while personal experience reflects clinical proficiency gained through patient care (Alatawi et al., 2020). Analysis of Criteria and Process for Implementing EBP Nurses encounter recurring problems that their prior experiences can resolve in their daily responsibilities. However, novel issues demand further investigation. To address such challenges, EBP follows a four-step process: Nurses compile information based on initial assessments to formulate a clinical problem statement, serving as a foundation for database searches. Rigorous scrutiny is applied to assess the credibility and relevance of sources. Based on this comprehensive literature review, nurses proceed to implement identified treatment protocols (Alatawi et al., 2020). NURS FPX 5005 Assessment 3 Evidence-based Practice in Nursing According to Alatawi et al. (2020), barriers to adopting EBP are both individual and organizational. Individual barriers relate to the professional competence of healthcare providers, including experience and attitudes. Organizational barriers pertain to resources and budgets, influencing the extent to which organizations prioritize optimal patient care. Importance of Scholarship for EBP Research Solving complex healthcare problems requires significant investments of time and resources. Programs such as Magnet® support evidence-based nursing practice and research (Wentland & Hinderer, 2020). Clinical nurses play a distinct role in driving problem-focused research, contributing to staff development, and enhancing healthcare capabilities (Whalen et al., 2020). Inclusion and exclusion criteria for evidence-based nursing practice, outlined by Saunders et al. (2019), consider biases, methodological quality, and multiple outcomes. Clinical Questions Related to Evidence-Based Practice Speroni et al. (2020) revealed that over 90% of Magnet-recognized hospitals in the United States utilize the EBP model. The Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice is most commonly employed, demonstrating its ability to enhance patient care. Clinical Question: “Which Interventions, Along with Patient Care Technologies, Control Fever Based on EBP in the ICU?” Chiwaula et al. (2021) introduced the Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice in the ICU of Kamuzu Central Hospital (KCH). Fever management in the ICU is a significant concern, and temperature monitoring devices with connected sensors empower frontline nurses to systematically manage the ICU. A significant knowledge gap in the study pertains to patient consent due to the unconscious state of many ICU patients. Patient circumstances and symptoms vary, requiring careful consideration to align EBP guidelines with individual patient needs (Chiwaula et al., 2021). Evaluation of Ethical and Regulatory Concerns for EBP Ethical concerns related to patient-doctor confidentiality and ethical codes necessitate full disclosure to patients regarding the study’s objectives and potential health implications. Informed consent must be obtained when conducting investigations involving patients (Chiwaula et al., 2021). Ethical considerations emphasize adherence to the Belmont principles, encompassing respect for autonomy, beneficence, and justice (Tu & Gao, 2021). Regulatory considerations mandate compliance with all FDA recommendations for evidence-based technology. Patient safety and privacy are paramount concerns, particularly when implementing interventions such as fever management in the ICU (Chiwaula et al., 2021). EBP may necessitate structural changes, technological upgrades, and financial considerations, posing policy challenges (Chipps et al., 2020). Conclusion Evidence-Based Practice has the potential to address emerging challenges in healthcare, provided nurses are afforded opportunities and support for scholarly research efforts. Upholding rigorous standards when evaluating literature, ensuring methodological quality, and maintaining patient confidentiality and anonymity are imperative in EBP studies. References Alatawi, M., Aljuhani, E., Alsufiany, F., Aleid, K., Rawah, R., Aljanabi, S., & Banakhar, M. (2020). Barriers of implementing evidence-based practice in nursing profession: A literature review. American Journal of Nursing Science, 9(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajns.20200901.16 Chipps, E., Tucker, S., Labardee, R., Thomas, B., Weber, M., Gallagher-Ford, L ., & Melnyk, B. M. (2020). The impact of the electronic health record on moving new evidence-based nursing practices forward. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12435 Chiwaula, C. H., Kanjakaya, P., Chipeta, D., Chikatipwa, A., Kalimbuka, T., Zyambo, L., Nkata, S., & Jere, D. L. (2021). Introducing evidence-based practice in nursing care delivery, utilizing the Iowa model in the intensive care unit at Kamuzu Central Hospital, Malawi. International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences, 14, 100272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijans.2020.100272 NURS FPX 5005 Assessment 3 Evidence-based Practice in Nursing Liu, Y., Liu, C., Gao, M., Wang, Y., Bai, Y., Xu, R., & Gong, R. (2020). Evaluation of a wearable wireless device with artificial intelligence, iThermonitor WT705, for continuous temperature monitoring for patients in surgical wards: A prospective comparative study. BMJ Open, 10(11), e039474. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039474 Saunders, H., Gallagher‐Ford, L., Kvist, T., & Vehviläinen‐Julkunen, K. (2019). Practicing healthcare professionals’ evidence‐based practice competencies: An overview of systematic reviews. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 16(3), 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12363 Speroni, K. G., McLaughlin, M. K., & Friesen, M. A. (2020). Use of evidence‐based practice models and research findings in magnet‐designated hospitals across the united states: National survey results. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 17(2), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12428 Tu, J., & Gao, W. (2021). Ethical considerations of wearable technologies in human research. Advanced Healthcare Materials, 10(17), 2100127. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.202100127 NURS FPX 5005 Assessment 3 Evidence-based Practice in Nursing Wentland, B. A., & Hinderer, K. A. (2020). A nursing research and evidence-based practice fellowship program in a magnet®-designated pediatric medical center. *Applied Nursing Research, 151287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2020.151287 Whalen, M., Baptiste, D.-L., & Maliszewski, B. (2020). Increasing Nursing Scholarship Through Dedicated Human Resources. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 50(2), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/nna.0000000000000847

NURS FPX 5005 Assessment 2 Quantitative and Qualitative Research Publication Critique

Student Name Capella University NURS-FPX 5005 Introduction to Nursing Research, Ethics, and Technology Prof. Name Date Quantitative and Qualitative Research Publication Critique The assessment of quantitative and qualitative research involves a detailed exploration and evaluation of each methodology. Qualitative research focuses on a thorough examination of new ideas and experiences, while quantitative research is concerned with measuring variables and testing hypotheses. This critique evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of a quantitative research study on falls among older patients and explores its ethical implications, while also considering the significance of both qualitative and quantitative research for patient care decision-making. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Quantitative Research Study Title: The Impact of Activity Mediation on Diminishing the Fall Hazard in Older Adults: A Meta-Examination of Randomized Controlled Trials In this quantitative study, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is employed to investigate the effects of exercise interventions on reducing falls among older adults. The study demonstrates strength in its comprehensive scope, rigorous methodology based on meta-analysis, clear findings supporting the effectiveness of exercise interventions, and practical implications for exercise frequency and intensity. The study’s weaknesses include potential limitations in capturing the complete effects of interventions, lack of consideration for comorbidities and economic circumstances, and reliance on self-reported data. Ethically, the study adheres to principles of informed consent, protection from risks, and respect for autonomy. The Belmont principles of respect, beneficence, and justice are integral to ethical standards, ensuring participant safety and fairness in the distribution of resources and services. Significance of the Research Problem The quantitative research addresses falls among older patients, a critical issue impacting health and economy. Approximately 30% of individuals over 65 experience falls annually, with associated healthcare costs of nearly $50 billion. The study provides evidence-based practices that, if integrated into healthcare policies, can enhance the quality of life for older patients. Evaluation of Quantitative Study The research informs decisions for older patients, showcasing the effectiveness of exercise interventions in reducing fall risks. Integrating these evidence-based practices into healthcare policies can prevent physical and mental harm associated with falls. However, the study could be improved by comparing the proposed intervention with other fall prevention strategies and incorporating patient perspectives and economic factors. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Qualitative Research Study Title: Put it to work, or it will quit working for you: A Subjective Investigation of The Support of Active Work in Older Adults The qualitative study focuses on physical inactivity among older adults, employing a thematic analysis approach. Strengths include insights into activity levels during interventions, exploration of health benefits, facilitators, barriers, and technology use in maintaining physical activity. Weaknesses include a small focus group size, limited geographic scope, and lack of exploration of economic impacts on physical activity maintenance. Ethically, the study received approval, ensured informed consent, and prioritized participant well-being. Significance of the Research Problem The qualitative research addresses global concerns about physical inactivity in older adults, emphasizing its importance for physical and mental well-being. Physical activity can mitigate the risk of chronic diseases and improve the overall quality of life for older adults. Conclusion Quantitative and qualitative research analyses are essential for a comprehensive examination of research problems. The strengths, weaknesses, and ethical considerations of each methodology contribute to a nuanced understanding of falls among older patients. Integrating evidence-based practices from both types of research can enhance patient care decision-making. References Bhandari, P. (2021). A guide to ethical considerations in research. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/ Cunningham, C., & O’Sullivan, R. (2020). Why physical activity matters for older adults in a time of pandemic. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-020-00249-3 Cunningham, C., O’Sullivan, R., Caserotti, P., & Tully, M. A. (2020). Consequences of physical inactivity in older adults: A systematic review of reviews and meta-analyses. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 30(5), 816–827. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13616 NURS FPX 5005 Assessment 2 Quantitative and Qualitative Research Publication Critique Florence, C. S., Bergen, G., Atherly, A., Burns, E., Stevens, J., & Drake, C. (2018). Medical costs of fatal and nonfatal falls in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 66(4), 693–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15304 Langhammer, B., Bergland, A., & Rydwik, E. (2018). The importance of physical activity exercise among older people. BioMed Research International, 2018(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7856823 Parker, M., Pearson, C., Donald, C., & Fisher, C. B. (2019). Beyond the Belmont Principles: A community‐based approach to developing an indigenous ethics model and curriculum for training health researchers working with American Indian and Alaska native communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 64(1-2), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12360 Vaishya, R., & Vaish, A. (2020). Falls in older adults are serious. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 54(1), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-019-00037-x NURS FPX 5005 Assessment 2 Quantitative and Qualitative Research Publication Critique

NURS FPX 5005 Assessment 1 Protecting Human Research Participants

Student Name Capella University NURS-FPX 5005 Introduction to Nursing Research, Ethics, and Technology Prof. Name Date Protecting Human Research Participants Introduction Human research has played a pivotal role in advancing human health and well-being (University of Alaska Fairbanks, n.d.). Ensuring the safety of human research subjects during studies and experiments is imperative (University of Alaska Fairbanks, n.d.). Ethical guidelines are in place to prevent any unethical treatment or abuse of study participants (University of Alaska Fairbanks, n.d.). Maintaining the integrity of necessary studies requires the avoidance of any abuse of human research subjects. History and Importance of Human Subject Protection The approach to protecting human subjects has evolved over the past century in response to unethical research practices (White, 2020). Vulnerable groups, historically used as research subjects without informed consent, included children and inmates (White, 2020). Two notorious instances of research exploitation are the Tuskegee Experiment and experiments in German concentration camps during World War II (White, 2020). The Tuskegee Experiment involved 399 syphilis patients and 201 uninfected controls who were denied informed consent and treatment (White, 2020). German concentration camps subjected captives to unethical medical procedures resulting in harm, disease, and death (White, 2020). Types of Research Activities Involving Human Subjects The Health and Human Services Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects defines human subjects as individuals whose personal data and biological samples are investigated, examined, or evaluated by researchers (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 2022). Human subjects also include those whose private information or biospecimens are used in research (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 2022). Human subject research comprises two types: observational and interventional (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 2022). Observational studies involve data collection without specific treatments, focusing on potential causes of diseases and their progression (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 2022). In contrast, interventional studies alter biological or cognitive systems through participant or environmental changes (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 2022). Strategies to Minimize Risks to Research Participants Throughout history, human research subjects have faced risks without adequate understanding or choice (White, 2020). To mitigate these risks, strategies have been implemented. The Nuremberg trials, responding to unethical research in German concentration camps, resulted in the establishment of The Nuremberg Code, outlining principles for human subject research (White, 2020). The Belmont Report, released in 1979, introduced principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, focusing on informed consent, risk assessment, and subject selection (CITI Program, n.d.) (White, 2020). Ethical Standards in Research Before the Belmont Report, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research produced Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to oversee and review biomedical research involving humans (White, 2020). IRBs are authorized bodies that ensure compliance with federal and institutional standards, safeguarding participants’ rights and well-being (US Food and Drug Administration, 2019). Protections for Vulnerable Populations Federal regulations, including the Common Rule, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, provide protections for vulnerable populations in human research (US Department of Health & Human Services, 2020). These regulations include subparts that protect pregnant women, human fetuses, neonates, prisoners, and children (CITI Program, n.d.) (US Department of Health & Human Services, 2020). Conclusion The importance of human research cannot be overstated. By protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects, we enable critical medical advancements while ensuring fair and respectful treatment of study participants. The history of human research ethics highlights the need for robust safeguards to protect the well-being of all individuals involved. References CITI Program. (n.d.). https://about.citiprogram.org/en/homepage/ National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. (2022, June). Human subjects research overview. https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/research/human-subjects-research The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the commission for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research. http://www.videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_belmont_report.pdf NURS FPX 5005 Assessment 1 Protecting Human Research Participants US Department of Health & Human Services. (2020, January 28). Principal regulations. Office for Human Research Protections. Retrieved November 28, 2022, from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/education-and-outreach/about-research-participation/protecting-research-volunteers/principal-regulations/index.html US Food and Drug Administration. (2019, September 11). Institutional review boards (ribs) and protection of human subjects. Center for drug evaluation and research. Retrieved November 27, 2022, from https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/institutional-review-boards-irbs-and-protection-human-subjects-clinical-trials University of Alaska Fairbanks. (n.d.). Human subjects in research. Office of research integrity. Retrieved November 28, 2022, from https://uaf.edu/ori/responsible-conduct/human-research-subjects/index.php Waisel, D. B. (2013). Vulnerable populations in healthcare. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology, 26(2), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1097/aco.0b013e32835e8c17 White, M. G. (2020). Why human subjects research protection is important. Ochsner Journal, 20(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.31486/toj.20.5012 NURS FPX 5005 Assessment 1 Protecting Human Research Participants Williams, E. D. (2005). Federal protection for human research subjects: an analysis of the Common Rule and Its interactions with FDA regulations and the HIPAA privacy rule. [https://doi.org/https://heinonline.org/HOL/Welcome?message=Please%20log%20in&url=%2FHOL%2FPage%3Fhandle%3Dhein.crs%2Fcrsuntaaeyd0001%26collection%3 Dcongrec%26id%3D1%26startid%3D1%26endid%3D79](https://doi.org/https://heinonline.org/HOL/Welcome?message=Please%20log%20in&url=%2FHOL%2FPage%3Fhandle%3Dhein.crs%2Fcrsuntaaeyd0001%26collection%3Dcongrec%26id%3D1%26startid%3D1%26endid%3D79)