NURS 8210 WEEK 6 DISCUSSION: DIGITAL HEALTH: MOBILE DEVICES, WEARABLES, TELEHEALTH, TELEMEDICINE

NURS 8210 WEEK 6 DISCUSSION: DIGITAL HEALTH: MOBILE DEVICES, WEARABLES, TELEHEALTH, TELEMEDICINE

NURS 8210 WEEK 6 DISCUSSION: DIGITAL HEALTH: MOBILE DEVICES, WEARABLES, TELEHEALTH, TELEMEDICINE

Preparing for her run, Susan tightened her fitness watch on her wrist. After experiencing and having received treatment for a heart arrhythmia, Susan was encouraged to wear the watch that not only would alert her if she experienced an irregular heartbeat, but the device would also report the findings to her medical team. Susan felt comfortable going on her run, knowing her device would monitor her heart.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

Digital health has changed how patients monitor their health. These advancements have allowed patients to take an active role with increased control and agency over their healthcare and well-being. Digital health has also allowed patients to communicate with healthcare providers in different ways that help to facilitate ongoing, continuous, and real-time conversations that lead to data-informed treatment approaches and healthcare plans. Thus, these advancements have shifted and changed how healthcare is offered and practiced both for the patient and healthcare provider.

For this Discussion, you will explore the use of digital health in healthcare organizations and nursing practice. Reflect on the use, implementation, and the barriers for digital health and consider how these devices have changed, or will continue to change, healthcare organizations and nursing practice.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Devi, D. H., Duraisamy, K., Armghan, A., Alsharari, M., Aliqab, K., Sorathiya, V., Das, S., & Rashid, N. (2023). 5G technology in healthcare and wearable devices: A reviewLinks to an external site.. Sensors (14248220), 23(5), 2519. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052519

Kruse, C., Betancourt, J., Ortiz, S., Valdes Luna, S. M., Bamrah, I. K., & Segovia, N. (2019). Barriers to the use of mobile health in improving health outcomes in developing countries: Systematic reviewLinks to an external site.. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(10), Article e13263. doi:10.2196/13263

Otto, L., Harst, L., Timpel, P., Wollschlaeger, B., Richter, P., & Schlieter, H. (2020). Defining and delimitating telemedicine and related terms – an ontology-based classificationLinks to an external site.. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 268, 113–122. doi:10.3233/SHTI200010

Raza, M. M., Venkatesh, K. P., & Kvedar, J. C. (2023). Promoting racial equity in Digital Health: Applying a cross-disciplinary equity frameworkLinks to an external site.. Npj Digital Medicine, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00747-5

Sen, S., Maity, S., & Das, D. (2020). Turning the body into a wireLinks to an external site.. IEEE Spectrum. https://spectrum.ieee.org/turning-the-body-into-a-wire

Smital, L., Haider, C. R., Vitek, M., Leinveber, P., Jurak, P., Nemcova, A., Smisek, R., Marsanova, L., Provaznik, I., Felton, C. L., Gilbert, B. K., & Holmes, D. R., III (2020). Real-time quality assessment of long-term ECG signals recorded by wearables in free-living conditionsLinks to an external site.. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 67(10), 2721–2734. doi:10.1109/TBME.2020.2969719

Yang, X., Wang, X., Li, X., Gu, D., Liang, C., Li, K., Zhang, G., & Zhong, J. (2020). Exploring emerging IoT technologies in smart health research: A knowledge graph analysisLinks to an external site.. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 20, 260. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01278-9

Wu, M., & Luo, J. (2019). Wearable technology applications in healthcare: A literature reviewLinks to an external site.. HIMSS. https://www.himss.org/resources/wearable-technology-applications-healthcare-literature-reviewLinks to an external site.

Document: Sample Paper Template (Word document)Download Sample Paper Template (Word document)

Optional Resources

Bettencourt, E. (2018). The future of nursing technology is exciting. https://diversitynursing.com/the-future-of-nursing-technology-is-exciting/#:~:text=The%20Future%20of%20Nursing%20Technology%20Is%20Exciting.%20adminericaB,advancements%20in%20medical%20science%2C%20telecommunications%2C%20and%20even%20

Donevant, S. B., Hilfinger Messias, D. K., & Estrada, R. D. (2018). Utilization of mobile applications in collaborative patient-provider monitoring of chronic health conditions: An examination of three theoretical frameworks to guide practice. Journal of Informatics Nursing, 3(2), 6–11.

Goldstein, K. M., Zullig, L. L., Dedert, E. A., Tabriz, A. A., Brearly, T. W., Raitz, G., Sata, S. S., Whited, J. D., Bosworth, H. B., Gordon, A. M., Nagi, A., Williams, J. W., & Gierisch, J. M. (2018). Telehealth interventions designed for women: An evidence map. Journal of General Internal MedicineLinks to an external site., 33(12), 2191–2200. doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4655-8

National Institute on Aging. (2017). NIH initiative tests in-home technology to help older adults age in placeLinks to an external site.. https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/nih-initiative-tests-home-technology-help-older-adults-age-place

Williams, J. K., Feero, W. G., Leonard, D. G. B., & Coleman, B. (2017). Implementation science, genomic precision medicine, and improved health: A new path forward? Nursing OutlookLinks to an external site., 65(1), 36–40. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2016.07.014

ZEBRA Technologies. (n.d.). The future of healthcare: 2022 Hospital vision study: Mobile technology elevates patient care, empowers clinicians and enhances workflowsLinks to an external site.. https://www.zebra.com/content/dam/zebra_new_ia/en-us/solutions-verticals/vertical-solutions/healthcare/white-paper/2022-hospital-vision-study-en-global.pdf

TO PREPARE

Review the Learning Resources associated with digital health.

Consider the use, implementation, and barriers of digital health for healthcare organizations and nursing practice.

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 6

Post a cohesive response to the following:

Choose one digital innovation (examples: telehealth, wearables, digital devices).

What challenges and opportunities have arisen in your healthcare organization or nursing practice while adopting a digital innovation? Please share your experiences and any key insights from these implementations.

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 6

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days. Expand upon your colleague’s posting or offer an alternative perspective on the use of digital health.

NURS_8210_Week6_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_8210_Week6_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)
20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)
30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.

18 to >0 pts

Poor

Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.
30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)

10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

10 pts

Total Points: 100