The Inclusion of Nurses in the Systems Development Life Cycle

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW:

1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM

2). ATLEAST 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS

3). PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED RUBRIC DETAILS. 

Thank you.  

In the media introduction to this module, it was suggested that you as a nurse have an important role in the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC). With a focus on patient care and outcomes, nurses may not always see themselves as contributors to the development of new systems. However, as you may have observed in your own experience, exclusion of nurse contributions when implementing systems can have dire consequences.

In this Discussion, you will consider the role you might play in systems development and the ramifications of not being an active participant in systems development.

To Prepare:

• Review the steps of the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) as presented in the Resources.
• Reflect on your own healthcare organization and consider any steps your healthcare organization goes through when purchasing and implementing a new health information technology system.
• Consider what a nurse might contribute to decisions made at each stage of the SDLC when planning for new health information technology.

Write a description of what you believe to be the consequences of a healthcare organization not involving nurses in each stage of the SDLC when purchasing and implementing a new health information technology system. Provide specific examples of potential issues at each stage of the SDLC and explain how the inclusion of nurses may help address these issues. Then, explain whether you had any input in the selection and planning of new health information technology systems in your nursing practice or healthcare organization and explain potential impacts of being included or not in the decision-making process. Be specific and provide examples. 

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name:

 

NURS_5051_Module05_Week09_Discussion_Rubric

• Grid View
• List View

 

Main Posting

Main Post: Timeliness

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

First Response

Second Response

Participation

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Points: Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does 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. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3. Feedback:				Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 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 effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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 effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response 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. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 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 effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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 effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response 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. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

Main Posting–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations 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.

Good
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds 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.

Fair
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds 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.

Poor
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does 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.

Feedback:

Main Post: Timeliness–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

Good
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Fair
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Poor
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

Feedback:

First Response–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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 effectively written in standard, edited English.

Good
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 effectively written in standard, edited English.

Fair
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response 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.

Poor
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response 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.

Feedback:

Second Response–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
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 effectively written in standard, edited English.

Good
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 effectively written in standard, edited English.

Fair
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response 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.

Poor
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response 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.

Feedback:

Participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

Good
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Fair
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Poor
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_5051_Module05_Week09_Discussion_Rubric