Feb 23, 2024 DeVRY NR 361 Week 6 discussion Distractors in our Environment
DeVRY NR 361 Week 6 discussion Distractors in our Environment
DeVRY NR 361 Week 6 discussion Distractors in our Environment
As a nurse, you have many responsibilities. Nurses are multitaskers they monitor the patients, medications, equipment, and much more while documenting everything that has been done. “Most technologies are designed by people unfamiliar with nurses’ workflow, and they fail to appreciate the multitude of other devices the nurse is simultaneously managing” (Ruppel & Funk, 2018). Therefore, due to these designers not understanding what a nurse’s role is the technology that we use does not always fit well with the nursing roles. Multitasking is overwhelming and nursing is a hard job in general adding the two can cause errors. Bed alarms are designed to alarm when the patient is moving off the bed. The alarm can also go off when the patient makes certain movements not just moving off the bed. For example, a nurse working a unit with several patients. One of the patients has a bed alarm and tends to make it go off on purpose multiples times. When the nurse arrives, the patient asks her about her day but does not need assistance. At the end of the night the nurse is busy when that patients bed alarm goes off, but the nurse ignores it because of what she experienced all day. “This alarm fatigue is compounded by the number of potential false alarms during a nurses’ work shift” (Hebda, Hunter, & Czar, 2019). The patient had called the nurse to ask for assistance to the bathroom. When the nurse did not respond the patient went alone and fell on the way and broke his leg. This is an ethical because there was a poor patient outcome due to unknown distraction and continuous false alarms. One of the nursing ethical guiding principles is “nonmaleficence: the obligation for doing no intentional harm” (Hebda, Hunter, & Czar, 2019). The nurse did not do intentional harm but cause harm due to the intentional disregard of the bed alarm.
“Alarms are by intent interruptive. Interruptions are typically considered to have a negative effect on patient safety. However, interruptions have been associated with an increased risk of errors” (Ruppel & Funk, 2018). The evidence shows that alarms are used to help patients, but they are a risk for negative patient safety. There is still need for research on how to join the two worlds where they can work together. One way is the lessen the nurses workload so that she does not feel overwhelmed to the point where they ignore their patients.
References
Hebda, T., Hunter, K., & Czar, P. (2019). Handbook of informatics for nurses & healthcare professionals (6th ed.). Pearson.
Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on DeVRY NR 361 Week 6 discussion Distractors in our Environment done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
Meet my deadline
Ruppel, H., & Funk, M. (2018). Nurse–Technology Interactions and Patient Safety. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America, 30(2), 203-213. doi:10.1016/j.cnc.2018.02.003
One consequence of alarm fatigue includes a significant clinical event ignored or missed that could lead to a potential harmful patient situation. (West et al. 2014). This reminds me of a patient in our cardiac care unit that would cause the cardiac monitor to appear to be in ventricular tachycardia by tapping on the cardiac lead. Several nurses quickly responded to the patient room to find the patient alert, watching television, and stating, “got here quicker this time and while you are here could you get me my snack”. The scenario continued over several hours with the nurses responding to the situation every time. Nurses finally become frustrated and silenced the alarm on the main cardiac monitor at the nurses’ station desk commenting “there he goes again”. The nurse caring for the patient, did go to the patient room but not as quickly as previously, to find him unresponsive, she quickly called for help and stabilized the patient. This fits the definition of alarm fatigue, a condition that occurs when a user is desensitized by the presence of excessive alarm signals, many non-actionable or false, and delay or no response to the alarm signal occurs and harm to the patient could result. (Winters et al., 2107) The nurses on the unit were frustrated with the patient calling wolf so many times that response time was delayed but thankfully the patient was treated appropriately and survived. Legal investigation on events that lead to delay in treatment could have occurred had the outcome had been different. As nurses, we are responsible for our actions no matter the outcome. Ethically, according to Hebda et al., the obligation of doing no harm is nonmaleficence. This is one example of alarm fatigue, today many pieces of equipment are utilized to care for a patient that one has to prioritize the alarm to address first.
Reference:
Hebda, T., Hunter, K., & Czar, P. (2019). Handbook of informatics for nurses & healthcare professionals (6th ed.). Pearson.
West, P., Abbott, P., & Probst, P. (2014). Alarm fatigue: A concept analysis. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics, 18(2), 1. https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=103925123&site=eds-live&scope=siteLinks to an external site.
Winters, B. D. , Cvach, M. M. , Bonafide, C. P. , Hu, X. , Konkani, A. , O’Connor, M. F. , Rothschild, J. M. , Selby, N. M. , Pelter, M. M. , McLean, B. & Kane-Gill, S. L. (2018). Technological Distractions (Part 2). Critical Care Medicine, 46(1), 130–137. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002803
Distractions are everywhere. They may include cellphones,the alarms sounding for multiple different reasons, overhead paging, monitorsbeeping, and staff interrupting our thoughts. Give an example of an ethical or
DeVRY NR 361 Week 6 discussion Distractors in our Environment
legal issue that may arise if a patient has a poor outcome or sentinel eventbecause of a distraction such as alarm fatigue. What does evidence reveal aboutalarm fatigue and distraction when it comes to patient safety?
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: DeVRY NR 361 Week 6 discussion Distractors in our Environment
Name: Discussion Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent90–100Good80–89Fair70–79Poor0–69Main Posting:Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.40 (40%) – 44 (44%)Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s).
Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three current credible sources.
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)Responds to most of the Discussion question(s).
Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible references.
31 (31%) – 34 (34%)Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).
One to 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.
Cited with fewer than two credible references.
0 (0%) – 30 (30%)Does not respond to the Discussion question(s).
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 references.
Main Posting:Writing6 (6%) – 6 (6%)Written clearly and concisely.
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Written concisely.
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)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 Posting:Timely and full participation9 (9%) – 10 (10%)Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)Posts main Discussion by due date.0 (0%) – 6 (6%)Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response:Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.9 (9%) – 9 (9%)Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.7 (7%) – 7 (7%)Response is on topic and may have some depth.0 (0%) – 6 (6%)Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.First Response:Writing6 (6%) – 6 (6%)Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully 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.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
First Response:Timely and full participation5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)Posts by due date.0 (0%) – 2 (2%)Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Second Response:Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.9 (9%) – 9 (9%)Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.7 (7%) – 7 (7%)Response is on topic and may have some depth.0 (0%) – 6 (6%)Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.Second Response:Writing6 (6%) – 6 (6%)Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully 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.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response:Timely and full participation5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)Posts by due date.0 (0%) – 2 (2%)Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100
Name: Discussion Rubric
Check Out also: DeVRY NR 361 Week 7 discussion Use of Personal Communication Devices in Patient Care Settings
Order a similar assignment, and have writers from our team of experts write it for you, guaranteeing you an A
