Feb 23, 2024 DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
What are the pros and cons of the situation in the case study?
The implementation of EHRS in the medical field has provided many benefits for both patients and providers. This long list of benefits includes improved safety, easier access to a patient’s chart which allows for faster care, and improved control over health information for the consumer (Hebda and Hunter, 2019). There are many pros to this scenario. I would like to highlight the efficiency aspect that the patient can review the information received by their healthcare provider as quickly as they can log in. The information can be reviewed multiple times for the patient to obtain a better understanding of their results and condition. The patient can easily share accurate information with the family and other providers. The patient’s ability to recollect what has been said to them by the provider may be altered for many reasons so the PHR is a great place to review. The PHR can be a reminder for symptoms that need to be reported, follow-up appointments, and new questions that may arise after the provider contact. In general, a tool to promote patient involvement. The greatest con to the scenario is that the patient was not able to access all their information in one place. As explained by (Lester M, Boateng S, Studeny J, and Coustasse A), some standards support interoperability and have started to take hold in the realm of PHRs. Blue Button and direct secure messaging are two such examples that have been incorporated into many PHR systems (2016). I am surprised by all the ways technology has advanced that we are not all using a system to universally integrate the different EHR’s. If this were the case it would make the patient experience more complete and the usability of the PHR more meaningful.
What safeguards are included inpatient portals and PHRs to help patients and healthcare professionals ensure safety?
There are many safeguards in place to help both patients and healthcare providers. When accessing a PHR there are security questions, PINs, and MRN numbers that are specific to the patient. The providers entering information also have passcodes specific to them when entering information so this data can be traced back to the author. These safeguards not only help keep information confidential but also accurate.
Do you agree or disagree with the way that a patient obtains Personal Health Records (PHRs)?
I agree with the right of a patient to have access to their information. As we develop and improve upon the PHR it will become more useful and effective for this objective. Allowing a patient to review their records can help them gain better insight into their health. This can allow them to develop questions for the next visit and help them be better informed regarding decisions and the direction of their care.
Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record) done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
Meet my deadline
What are the challenges for patients that do not have access to all the PHRs?
Remember, only portions of the EHRs are typically included in the PHRs. The great challenges for patients not being able to access all their information revolve around them not seeing the complete picture. It will be hard for them to understand a holistic approach to healthcare decision-making if they do not see all the pieces of the puzzle. If information is not in the PHR then it is the healthcare provider’s responsibility to inform and explain what is missing. I have had patients pull all this information together into spreadsheets. They bring the spreadsheets with them when they are admitted to the hospital and it makes the admission process much more efficient and smoother. This affects the quality of care and patient satisfaction in their stay.
References
Hebda, T., Hunter, K., & Czar, P. (2019). Handbook of informatics for nurses & healthcare professionals (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Lester M, Boateng S, Studeny J, and Coustasse A, (April 2016) Personal Health Records: Beneficial or Burdensome for Patients and Healthcare Providers? Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://chamberlain-on-worldcat-org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/oclc/6031930212
Patient portals and personal health records (PHRs) are
DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
commonplace today. What are the pros and cons of having a PHR? What safeguards and decision-making support tools are included in patient portals and PHRs to help patients and healthcare professionals ensure safety?
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: DeVRY NR 361 Week 4 discussion Your Patient has a PHR (Personal Health Record)
Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent
90–100
Good
80–89
Fair
70–79
Poor
0–69
Main 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:
Writing
6 (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 participation
9 (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:
Writing
6 (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 participation
5 (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
Also Read: DeVRY NR 361 Week 5 discussion Documentation and Reimbursement
Order a similar assignment, and have writers from our team of experts write it for you, guaranteeing you an A
