Feb 23, 2024 DeVRY NR 361 Week 7 discussion Use of Personal Communication Devices in Patient Care Settings
DeVRY NR 361 Week 7 discussion Use of Personal Communication Devices in Patient Care Settings
DeVRY NR 361 Week 7 discussion Use of Personal Communication Devices in Patient Care Settings
It is very disappointing that nurses may feel or need to use their personal devices to contact people or retrieve information. I work in two different specialties. As a detox nurse I have access to a mobile laptop, cell phone, and computer. The computer we sit at when we are not actually on the unit. The phone is carried everywhere with the nurse and the laptop is used when on the actually unit. There is internet access on all these devices as well as contact information for all health professionals needed for patient care. We have these tools in place to ensure that we don’t use our personal devices. This doesn’t stop people from using them but we do have policies in place to avoid distractions. My other job I am a nurse consultant for developmentally disabled individuals. I have my own company laptop and cell phone that I can access all information needed. The cell phone that I carry has a hot spot feature which allows me to gain access to the internet through my computer if I am in a place outside of the company. I never have to use my personal devices to contact people or look for information. Nurses already have many responsibilities, using our personal devices to manage workflow is not one of them.
How can the use of the nurse’s personal communication device(s) impact patient care positively and/or negatively?
The topic of communication devices would be an interesting discussion at any period however the current COVID 19 situation we find ourselves in can support the pros for this technology more than ever. At my facility, we make great efforts to minimize patient contact with positive COVID 19 patients. Nurses are primary care providers as we act like all the ancillary disciplines. We are lab techs, housekeeping, and respiratory therapists to just name a few. We do our best to be a liaison for the family, many times communicating and updating on patient’s personal cell phones. When contact is necessary for other healthcare professionals like the physicians and or consultations, we have an iPad available in each isolation room. This is very helpful in situations like translation, informed consent, and even delicate discussions involving code status changes. It is up to the nurses, especially now to be the patient advocate and initiating these conversations while sometimes we are the only direct contacts these patients have. As stated by Tsigrogianni and Tarnanas, “There are winners and losers with any change; and it is incumbent on health service workers (including researchers, providers, administrators, and decision- and policy-makers) to ensure that care recipients and informal caregivers continue to be on the winning side” (2007). As far as the use of healthcare professionals’ personal devices, the pros have a lot to do with education. I can use my own device to access information from the web quickly when needed to educate myself or review a topic prior to introducing the information to patients and family. Although I do have the same access to this info on my work devices, it is many times faster to access from my personal phone’s internet. Although it is convenient for the nurses it may be negatively impactful when a patient or family member sees a healthcare professional on their phone not understanding the reasons.
What are the ethical and legal implications of the use of personal devices?
Information can fall into the wrong hands if it is not handled with the most caution to protect the confidentiality of our patients. Therefore, when I use my PCD I will only search for generic topics like disease processes and not information with specific identifiers. I know some nurses will friend patients on social media, but I fear that a simple casual conversation on this media could cross confidentiality lines and result in HIPPA violations. This is a no-go zone for me. As mentioned in Hebda, “Threats to information and system security and confidentiality come from a variety of sources, including system penetration by thieves, hackers, unauthorized use, denial of service and terrorist attacks, cybercrime, errors and disasters, sabotage, viruses, and human error” (2019). These are many reasons why we should not use a PCD to access anything involving personal identifying information. My facility provides a safe way of accessing information online that is protected by firewalls and encryption if it involves the use of confidential information. Therefore, there is no need for me to put myself or my patients at risk.
Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on DeVRY NR 361 Week 7 discussion Use of Personal Communication Devices in Patient Care Settings done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
Meet my deadline
What does professional literature say about how communication devices can support safe nursing practice?
Using communication devices can support the safe nursing practice by providing documentation, reimbursement, and efficient use of valuable time. Saving time is especially helpful when urgent situations arise. As Hebda explains, Database searches of professional journals and credible evidence-based practice (EBP) Web sites significantly reduce the time and effort one might expend investigating a clinical question (2019). Although this technology is always evolving, we must keep up. As Hebda also explains, the process of accreditation has direct implications for how documentation and information systems are structured (2019). One example impressing upon us the importance of accreditation.
References
Hebda, T., Hunter, K., & Czar, P. (2019). Handbook of informatics for nurses & healthcare professionals (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Tsigrogianni KG, Tarnanas IA. Patients, Caregivers, and Telehome-Based Care Systems: A Case Study. Journal of Cases on Information Technology. 2007 Jul;9(3):71-90.
How can the use of the nurse’s personal communicationdevice(s) impact patient care positively and/or negatively? What are the
ethical and legal implications? What does the professional literature say abouthow communication devices can support safe nursing practice?
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: DeVRY NR 361 Week 7 discussion Use of Personal Communication Devices in Patient Care Settings
Name: Discussion 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
Check Out also: DeVRY NR 361 Week 8 discussion Reflective and Projected Practice
Order a similar assignment, and have writers from our team of experts write it for you, guaranteeing you an A
