NURS 8210 WEEK 5 DISCUSSION: DATA SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND PROCESSES

NURS 8210 WEEK 5 DISCUSSION: DATA SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND PROCESSES

NURS 8210 WEEK 5 DISCUSSION: DATA SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND PROCESSES

How might data compiled and analyzed in your healthcare organization or nursing practice help support efforts aimed at patient quality and safety? Why might it be important to consider the how’s and why’s of data collection, application, and implementation? How might these practices shape your nursing practice or even the future of nursing?

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

For this Discussion, you will explore various topics related to data and consider the process and application of each. Reflect on the use of these applications, but also consider the implications of how these applications might shape the future of nursing and healthcare 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

Begin your review of required Learning Resources with these quick media resources to define some of the many terms you will hear in Nursing Informatics and Project Management today. If you are more interested in a particular one, there are many longer videos available.

GovLoop. (2016, June 15). Defining data analyticsLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAw55JEcnEs

IDG TECHTalk. (2020, March 27). What is predictive analyticsLinks to an external site.? Transforming data into future insights [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVibCHRSxB0

ProjectManager. (2016, March 11). Gantt charts, simplified – project management trainingLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGkHjby1xKM

Simplilearn. (2017, August 3). Data science vs big data vs data analyticsLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR2wWQYiVKM

Simplilearn. (2019, December 10). Big data in 5 minutesLinks to an external site. | What is big data?| introduction to big data | big data explained | simplilearn [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAyrObl7TYE

Required Media

Sipes, C. (2020). Project management for the advanced practice nurse (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing.

Chapter 4, “Planning: Project Management—Phase 2” (pp. 75–120)

American Nurses Association. (2015). Nursing informaticsLinks to an external site.: Scope and standards of practice (2nd ed.).

“Standard 3: Outcomes Identification” (p. 71)

“Standard 4: Planning” (p. 72)1

Brennan, P. F., & Bakken, S. (2015). Nursing needs big data and big data needs nursingLinks to an external site.. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 47(5), 477–484. doi:10.1111/jnu.12159 National Institutes of Health, Office of Data Science Strategy. (2021). Data science.

National Institutes of Health, Office of Data ScienceLinks to an external site. Strategy. (2021). Data science. https://datascience.nih.gov/

Zhu, R., Han, S., Su, Y., Zhang, C., Yu, Q., & Duan, Z. (2019). The application of big data and the development of nursing science: A discussion paperLinks to an external site.. International Journal of Nursing Sciences, 6(2), 229–234. doi:10.1016/j.ijnss.2019.03.001

Data analysis

Elsaleh, T., Enshaeifar, S., Rezvani, R., Acton, S. T., Janeiko, V., & Bermudez-Edo, M. (2020). IoT-stream: A lightweight ontology for internet of things data streams and its use with data analytics and event detection servicesLinks to an external site.. Sensors, 20(4), 953. doi:10.3390/s20040953

Parikh, R. B., Gdowski, A., Patt, D. A., Hertler, A., Mermel, C., & Bekelman, J. E. (2019). Using big data and predictive analytics to determine patient risk in oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational BookLinks to an external site., 39, e53–e58. doi:10.1200/EDBK_238891

Spachos, D., Siafis, S., Bamidis, P., Kouvelas, D., & Papazisis, G. (2020). Combining big data search analytics and the FDA adverse event reporting system database to detect a potential safety signal of mirtazapine abuseLinks to an external site.. Health Informatics Journal, 26(3), 2265–2279. doi:10.1177/1460458219901232

Optional Resources

Mehta N., & Pandit, A. (2018). Concurrence of big data analytics and healthcare: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical InformaticsLinks to an external site., 114, 57–65. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.03.013

Ristevski, B., & Chen, M. (2018). Big data analytics in medicine and healthcare. Journal of Integrative BioinformaticsLinks to an external site., 15(3), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1515/jib-2017-0030

Shea, K. D., Brewer, B. B., Carrington, J. M., Davis, M., Gephart, S., & Rosenfeld, A. (2018). A model to evaluate data science in nursing doctoral curricula. Nursing OutlookLinks to an external site., 67(1), 39–48. https://www.nursingoutlook.org/article/S0029-6554(18)30324-5/fulltext

Sheehan, J., Hirschfeld, S., Foster, E., Ghitza, U., Goetz, K., Karpinski, J., Lang, L., Moser. R. P., Odenkirchen, J., Reeves, D., Runinstein, Y., Werner, E., & Huerta, M. (2016). Improving the value of clinical research through the use of common data elements. Clinical Trials, 13(6), 671–676, doi:10.1177/ 1740774516653238

Topaz, M., & Pruinelli, L. (2017). Big data and nursing: Implications for the futureLinks to an external site.. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 232, 165–171.

Westra, B. L., Sylvia, M., Weinfurter, E. F., Pruinelli, L., Park, J. I., Dodd, D., Keenan, G. M., Senk, P., Richesson, R. L., Baukner, V., Cruz, C., Gao, G., Whittenburg, L., & Delaney, C. W. (2017). Big data science: A literature review of nursing research exemplarsLinks to an external site.. Nursing Outlook, 65(5), 549–561.

Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, A., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., da Silva Santos, L. O., Bourne, P., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark. T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C., Finkers, R., … González-Beltrán, A. (2016). The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific DataLinks to an external site., 3, Article 160018, 1–9. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18

TO PREPARE

Review the Learning Resources for this week related to the topics: Big Data, Data Science, Data Mining, Data Analytics, and Machine Learning.

Consider the process and application of each topic.

Reflect on how each topic relates to nursing practice.

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 5

Post a summary on how predictive analytics might be used to support healthcare. Note: These topics may overlap as you will find in the readings (e.g., some processes require both Data Mining and Analytics).

In your post include the following:

Describe a practical application for predictive analytics in your nursing practice. What challenges and opportunities do you envision for the future of predictive analytics in healthcare?

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 5

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.

NURS_8210_Week5_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_8210_Week5_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