Doe 1 John Doe Professor O. Jean ENC1102 15 J

Doe 1
John Doe
Professor O. Jean
ENC1102
15 July 2020
Simulation Training for Nursing Students
They can’t fly or read minds, but they still save lives! Nurses
are the modern-day
superheroes. In today’s evolving world of technology, the
medical field welcomes advancements
with open arms. The best way for a nursing student to craft and
hone their skills is with on-the-
job training. Since it is not safe for nursing students to pr actice
on actual human beings right
away, simulation training is the next best thing. Simulation
training allows students to practice
on human like figures, ranging from babies to adults, that are
able to breathe, maintain a pulse
and blood pressure, go into cardiac arrest, and much more. With
this technological advancement,

nursing students will be able to enter the medical field with
more knowledge and confidence,
better manage stressful situations, and produce less errors.
It has been proven effective in any place of work that on-the-job
training is the best
method of learning. Just the same as a sponge, some students
soak up all the knowledge that a
textbook contains, but others require hands on learning. When
learning new techniques, tools,
body parts, etc., touching them teaches the brain muscle
memory allowing students to put a face
to the name. “… simulation had improved students’ learning in
terms of knowledge, critical
thinking, reasoning and self-confidence” (Agha, 19). These
simulations allow students to be able
to learn and perfect possible scenarios before going into
clinicals. “Through simulated practices,
the student health professional can improve technical,
communication and also behavioral skills,
develop critical observation, learn to work in a team, and
exercise clinical reasoning and
Doe 2

decision-making” (Fonseca, 3). Hospital staff, patients, and
their family’s minds can be more at
ease knowing that nursing students are getting the most out of
their education before entering the
medical field.
A hospital is the home of chaos. While one wing may be silent,
another contains the
screams of a mother giving birth, or doctors and nurses
scrambling to keep their patient alive in
an operating room. Nurses must be able to manage their stress
in any situation thrown at them. In
a study conducted on Hybrid simulations, groups of three to
four nursing students were able to
work with various forms of simulations from low to high
technologies. This exercise essentially
mirrored a high-volume emergency room scenario. “Hybrid
simulation is the combination of
more than one simulation modality in a single teaching or
evaluation exercise…Hybrid
simulations allows for the training of technical skills combined
with communication proficiency”
(Unver, p. 264). Professionalism and teamwork, although
frequently overlooked, are some of the

most important skills a nurse should bear. As a nurse you will
never be working alone. You are
working with other nurses, doctors, your patients, and their
families. In stressful situations,
nurses must be able to keep themselves, the patient, and the
patient’s family cool, calm, and
collected. “Previous experience with simulated patients helped
me a lot. I feel confident and
calm when dealing with a real patient and families” (Agha,
P2,6).
In a hospital lives are always on the line. Nurses and doctors
have a job that they are
expected to do. That is to exhaust every last option in order to
save the lives of their patients,
therefore there is little to no room for error. “Our goal is to
provide students the opportunity to
simulate an emergency, analyze the situation and think critically
informing and implementing a
plan of case management… to help students learn what it’s like
to have to make decisions
quickly in an environment where it is safe to make mistakes”
(Dowling, par. 4). When students
Doe 3

can make mistakes and learn from them without being scolded
or criticized, confidence is
gained. A confident person produces greater and more precise
work, allowing no room for error.
After many evaluations, it has been proven that simulation
training would benefit nurses
by being added to every nursing program’s curriculum.
Simulation training allows hands on
learning before dealing with live patients and affords students
the opportunity to learn how to
keep calm in stressful situations. Nursing students who
participated in simulation training came
out more confident in what they learned, allowing them to not
feel so anxious and stressed when
heading into clinicals and entering the medical field. With this
extra practice the margin for error
is minimized. Therefore, simulation training is the way to go.

Doe 4
Works Cited
Agha, Sajida. “Effect of Simulation Based Education for
Learning in Medical Students:
A Mixed Study Method.” JPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan
Medical Association, vol. 69, no.
4, Apr. 2019, pp. 545-554. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&
db=mnh&AN=31000861&site=
ehost-live&scope=site.
Fonseca, Luciana Mara Monti, et al. “Interdisciplinary
Simulation Scenario in Nursing
Education: Humanized Childbirth and Birth.” Revista Latin-
Americana de Enfermagem, vol. 28,
June 2020, p. e3286. EBSCOhost, doi: 10.1590/1518-

8345.3681.3286.
“Surgical Technology; New Nursing Teaching Tool Dubbed
SimBaby.” Obesity, Fitness
& Wellness Week, Jul 23 2005, p. 1498. ProQuest. Web. 14 July
2020.
Unver, Vesile, et al. “Integrating Simulation Based Learning
into Nursing Education
Programs: Hybrid Simulation.” Technology and Health Care:
Official Journal of the European
Society for Engineering and Medicine, vol. 26, no. 2, 2018, pp.
263-270.EBSCOhost, doi:
10.3233/THC-170853.
The global electronic health record market is
expected to grow at a CAGR of 5.6% from 2017 to
2027
Publication info: PR Newswire ; New York [New York]09 Jan
2018.
ProQuest document link

FULL TEXT
NEW YORK, Jan. 9, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Read the full report:
https://www.reportlinker.com/p05273324
Report Details
The global electronic health record market is expected to grow
at a CAGR of 5.6% from 2017 to 2027. In 2016, the
Web-based EHR segment held 43% share of the global
electronic health record market.
How this report will benefit you
Read on to discover how you can exploit the future business
opportunities emerging in this sector.
In this brand new 151-page report you will receive 77 tables and
84 figures– all unavailable elsewhere.
The 151-page report provides clear detailed insight into the
global electronic health record market. Discover the
key drivers and challenges affecting the market.
By ordering and reading our brand-new report today you stay
better informed and ready to act.
Report Scope

• Global Electronic Health Record Market forecasts from 2017-
2027
This report also breaks down the revenue forecast for the global
electronic health record market by technology:
- On-premise based EHR
- Web-based EHR
- Cloud-based EHR
Each submarket is further broken down by region: North
America, South America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and RoW
This report also breaks down the revenue forecast for the global
electronic health record market by end-users:
- Hospitals
- Ambulatory Care Centers
- Home Healthcare Agencies, Nursing Homes, and Assisted
Living Facilities
- Diagnostic and Imaging Centers
- Pharmacies
Each submarket is further broken down by region: North
America, South America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and RoW

https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/global-electronic-health-
record-market-is/docview/1985925017/se-2?accountid=158399
This report provides individual revenue forecasts to 2027 for
these regional and national markets:
- North America: the US, Canada and Mexico
- South America: Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia and Rest
of South America
- Europe: France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy and Rest of
Europe
- Asia-Pacific: China, Japan, India, Australia, Thailand and Rest
of Asia-Pacific
- Rest of the World: Middle East, Africa and other Countries
• Our study gives qualitative analysis of the global electronic
health record market. It discusses the Drivers and
Restraints that influence this market as well as the Porter's Five
Forces Analysis of the global electronic health
record market.
Our study discusses the selected leading companies that are the
major players in the global electronic health

record market:
- McKesson Corporation
- Allscripts Healthcare
Solution
s, Inc
- athenahealth, Inc.
- Epic Systems Corporation
- GE Healthcare
- Cerner Corporation
- Oracle Corporation
- Philips
- Infor, Inc.
Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p05273324

About Reportlinker
ReportLinker is an award-winning market research solution.
Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry
data so you get all the market research you need - instantly, in
one place.
__________________________
Contact Clare: [email protected]
US: (339)-368-6001
Intl: +1 339-368-6001
View original content: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-
releases/the-global-electronic-health-record-market-is-
expected-to-grow-at-a-cagr-of-56-from-2017-to-2027-
300580219.html
SOURCE Reportlinker

CREDIT: Reportlinker
DETAILS
Subject: Ambulatory care; Market research
Business indexing term: Subject: Market research; Industry:
54191 : Marketing Research and Public Opinion
Polling
Classification: 54191: Marketing Research and Public Opinion
Polling
Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest
Publication title: PR Newswire; New York

Publication year: 2018
Publication date: Jan 9, 2018
Dateline: NEW YORK, Jan. 9, 2018
Publisher: PR Newswire Association LLC
Place of publication: New York
Country of publication: United States, New York
Publication subject: Business And Economics
Source type: Wire Feeds
Language of publication: English
Document type: News
ProQuest document ID: 1985925017
Document URL: https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/global-
electronic-health-record-market-

is/docview/1985925017/se-2?accountid=158399
Copyright: Copyright PR Newswire Association LLC Jan 9,
2018
Last updated: 2020-1 1-16
Database: ABI/INFORM Dateline
https://www.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
http://about.proquest.com/go/pqissupportcontactThe global
electronic health record market is expected to grow at a CAGR
of 5.6% from 2017 to 2027
Writing Effective Thesis Statements

Competencies and Outcomes
The activities in this lesson will help you achieve the following
competencies and course outcomes:
Competency 1-
choosing and limiting a subject that can be sufficiently
developed within a given time for a specific purpose and
audience
developing and refining pre-writing and planning skills
formulating the main point to reflect the subject and purpose of
the writing
Competency 2-
constructing a thesis statement
Learning Outcomes
LO1- Communicate effectively using listening, speaking,
reading, and writing skills.
LO2- Thinking critically and demonstrate knowledge of diverse
cultures, including global and historical perspectives/ events .
Unfocused

Unorganized
Lacks structure
What is a thesis statement?
The thesis statement is the main point of the essay. It explains
what the essay will be about and expresses the writer’s position
on the subject and the organization of the essay.
Major Arteries
Heart
Highways

How To Write an Effective Thesis
Tips For Writing an Effective Thesis Statement
Make an assertion- take a position, state a view point, or
suggests your approach toward the topic
Be specific
Focus on one central point
Offer an original perspective on your topic
Make sure your thesis is arguable
Avoid making an announcement
Use your thesis to preview the organization of the essay- use
your thesis to mention the three or four key concepts on which
your essay will focus, in the order you will discuss them
Insert the thesis as the last sentence of your introduction
Example

General Topic = Food
Specific/ Focused Topic= Vegan diet
Assertion= A vegan diet is a great way to remain healthy.
3- point thesis= A vegan diet is a great way to remain healthy
because it increases nutrient intake, helps with weight loss, and
protects against certain cancers.
Which of the following is an example of an effective thesis?
A).Teachers and school officials should be allowed to carry
guns in school.
B). Teachers should not be allowed to carry guns in school, for
this will increase violence, present distractions, and lead to
confusion during an active shooter situation.

C). Many people believe that teachers should carry guns in
schools to protect students from shooting massacres.
Check Your Understanding
https://create.kahoot.it/kahoots/my-kahoots/folder/ad9612e6-
e4ae-4730-b1fe-098ff61529ab
Assignment
Now that we have discussed various prewriting strategies (i.e.
free writing, mapping/ clustering, asking questions) and how to
write an effective thesis. Choose a prewriting strategy and
narrow the topics below. Then you must write a thesis for each

topic.
Education
Sports
By Larry Wolf, Jennie Harvell, and Ashish K. Jha
Hospitals Ineligible For Federal
Meaningful-Use Incentives Have
Dismally Low Rates Of Adoption
Of Electronic Health Records
ABSTRACT The US government has dedicated substantial
resources to help
certain providers, such as short-term acute care hospitals and
physicians,
adopt and meaningfully use electronic health record (EHR)
systems. We
used national data to determine adoption rates of EHR systems
among all
types of inpatient providers that were ineligible for these same

federal
meaningful-use incentives: long-term acute care hospitals,
rehabilitation
hospitals, and psychiatric hospitals. Adoption rates for these
institutions
were dismally low: less than half of the rate among short-term
acute care
hospitals. Specifically, 12 percent of short-term acute care
hospitals have
at least a basic EHR system, compared with 6 percent of long-
term acute
care hospitals, 4 percent of rehabilitation hospitals, and 2
percent of
psychiatric hospitals. To advance the creation of a nationwi de
health
information technology infrastructure, federal and state policy
makers
should consider additional measures, such as adopting health
information technology standards and EHR system certification
criteria
appropriate for these ineligible hospitals; including such
hospitals in
state health information exchange programs; and establishing
low-
interest loan programs for the acquisition and use of certified

EHR
systems by ineligible providers.
T
he Health Information Technology
for Economic and Clinical Health
(HITECH) provisions of the Ameri-
can Recovery and Reinvestment Act
were enacted into law in 2009 to
develop a nationwide health information tech-
nology (IT) infrastructure. The legislation pro-
motes the electronic exchange of clinical data
through the widespread use of certified elec-
tronic health records (EHRs) as a means of fos-
tering health care quality and efficiency. This
foundation is critical to broader health care re-
form efforts, such as patient-centered medical
homes and accountable care organizations as
articulated in the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
The HITECH provisions make Medicare and
Medicaid incentives available to certain types of
providers, such as short-term acute care hospi-

tals and physicians able to meet specific “mean-
ingful use” criteria. However, the law leaves im-
portant health care providers out of the incentive
program, including nursing homes, home
health agencies, long-term acute care hospitals,
inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, and inpatient
psychiatric hospitals. These providers were ex-
cluded from the incentive program primarily be-
cause of funding constraints and uncertainty
about their readiness to adopt EHR systems.1
Excluding key providers—such as hospitals
that care for patients with complex medical con-
ditions who are often chronically ill and func-
tionally impaired—from broad national efforts
to promote the adoption of EHR systems and
exchange of clinical data has important implica-
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0351
HEALTH AFFAIRS 31,
NO. 3 (2012): 505–513
©2012 Project HOPE—
The People-to-People Health
Foundation, Inc.

Larry Wolf is a health
information technology
strategist at Kindred
Healthcare, in Louisville,
Kentucky.
Jennie Harvell is a senior
policy analyst in the Office of
the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation,
Department of Health and
Human Services, in
Washington, D.C.
Ashish K. Jha is an associate
professor of health policy at
the Harvard School of Public
Health and an associate
professor of medicine at
Harvard Medical School, in
Boston, Massachusetts.
March 2012 31:3 Health Affairs 505
Electronic Health Records

by Rachel McCartney
on March 5, 2012Health Affairs by
content.healthaffairs.orgDownloaded from
http://content.healthaffairs.org/
tions. Assuming that these ineligible hospital
providers adopt EHR systems at a slower rate
as a consequence of their exclusion from finan-
cial incentives, the patients who receive care at
these hospitals will be less likely to benefit from
the improved care associated with access to an
EHR. There will be spillover effects as well: If
large segments of the health care system remain
paper based, then investments to support EHR
adoption and use by eligible hospitals and physi-
cians might not produce the expected quality
and efficiency gains.
Nearly one-third of all Medicare patients dis-
charged from short-term acute care hospitals are
discharged to postacute care settings such as
rehabilitation hospitals.2,3 This proportion of pa-

tients is likely to increase over time. As a result, it
is critical to ensure the flow of clinical data
among providers to reduce waste and promote
high-quality care. Case studies of some postacute
care providers have identified benefits of imple-
menting EHR systems similar to those reported
for acute care hospitals and physicians.4,5 It is
generally believed that the use of EHR systems
would produce the same quality and efficiency
gains for the ineligible hospitals as are antici-
pated for eligible, short-term acute care hospi-
tals. Adoption rates for EHR systems have been
previously examined, using national data, for
nursing homes, home health, and hospice
providers.6,7
This study isthefirst to use nationallyavailable
hospital data to provide a baseline of EHR system
adoptionrates for hospitals thatareineligiblefor
federal incentives. It compares the use of this
technology at ineligible hospitals with that at
short-term acute care hospitals. We examined
data for all ineligible hospital providers: long-
term acute care hospitals, rehabilitation hospi-
tals, and psychiatric hospitals. First, we deter-

mined EHR system adoption rates and compared
these rates to those at eligible short-term acute
care hospitals to assess whether a gap already
exists. Second, we examined how engaged these
ineligiblehospitals areinelectronically exchang-
ing clinical data. Finally, we assessed whether
ineligible hospitals could meet the meaningful-
use criteria incorporated in stage 1 of existing
federal regulations. These stage 1 criteria spell
out EHR data capture and information-sharing
requirements that hospitals must meet to qualify
for federal incentives.
Information from this analysis will provide
critical insights for policy makers about how
these providers are faring on adopting EHR tech-
nology and what the implications are for efforts
to develop a nationwide health IT infrastructure
to improve the quality and efficiency of the
health care system.
Study Data And Methods
Data On The Hospital Survey We used data
from the 2009 health IT supplement to the
American Hospital Association survey. We fo-

cused on responses from the three types of ineli-
gible hospitals (long-term acute care, rehabilita-
tion, and psychiatric) and compared their
responses to those from short-term acute care
hospitals, which have been previously pub-
lished.8 The 2009 survey was conducted from
March through September 2009, and its ap-
proach has been described elsewhere.9 The
health ITsupplement was developed by an expert
panel under the auspices of the Office of the
National Coordinator for Health Information
Technology. The survey was sent by the Ameri-
can Hospital Association to each hospital’s CEO.
Each hospital reported on the presence or ab-
sence of thirty-two clinical functions of an EHR
system and on whether these had been fully
implemented in every unit of the hospital, fully
implemented in at least one unit of the hospital,
partly implemented, or not yet begun to be
implemented.9 The survey results also identify
key hospital characteristics, including hospital
type, size, ownership, location, and available
services (such as a coronary care unit).
Defining EHR Systems And Meaningful-Use

Requirements The functions included in basic
and comprehensive EHR systems were derived
by the expert panel described above and have
been used in previous reports of the adoption
and use of EHR systems.8,9 A hospital was des-
ignated as having a basic EHR system if it had ten
specific electronic clinical functions deployed in
at least one hospital unit. A hospital was catego-
rized as having a comprehensive EHR system if it
had a set of twenty-four electronic clinical func-
tions deployed in all clinical units of the hospi-
tal.9 The functions required to meet the defini-
tion of a basic or comprehensive EHR system are
included in Appendix Exhibit 1.10
We identified questions from the American
Hospital Association survey that had clear ana-
logues to the stage 1 meaningful-use criteria. The
ones meeting this test were nine of the fourteen
core objectives and three of the ten menu objec-
tives in the final rule for the Medicare and Medic-
aid Electronic Health Record Incentive Program
(Appendix Exhibit 2).8,10,11

Analysis We used a series of statistical tests
(chi-square tests for categorical variables and t
tests for continuous variables) to compare
respondents and nonrespondents to the survey
and found modest but significant differences. To
adjust for nonresponse bias, we used a logistic
regression model to estimate the likelihood of a
hospital’s responding to the survey based on
characteristics such as size, location, and teach-
506 Health Affairs March 2012 31:3
by Rachel McCartney
ing status.We then weighted all responses by the
inverse of that hospital’s likelihood of response.
This technique allowed us to create national es-
timates while accounting for the observable com-

ponents that might produce nonresponse bias.
We computed the number of hospitals in each
of our three ineligible hospital types and eligible
acute care hospitals that were able to meet the
definitions for basic and comprehensive EHR
systems explained above.9 We also calculated,
using the weighting technique described above,
the adoption rates of individual functions, such
as computerized physician order entry for med-
ications and the ability to exchange clinical data
electronically. We used chi-square tests (for cat-
egorical variables) and analyses of variance (for
continuous variables) to compare adoption rates
of basic and comprehensive EHR systems as well
as the twenty-four individual functions across
the four groups of hospitals.
We also considered multivariable models in
which we combined all four groups of hospitals
and modeled the likelihood of having a basic or
comprehensive EHR system across these groups,
adjusting for key hospital characteristics such as
size and teaching status. The results were quali-
tatively similar. However, given that the finan-

cial incentives under the HITECH provisions do
not “adjust” or give credit for key hospital char-
acteristics, we believe that the most policy-rel-
evant comparison was one that was unadjusted.
Finally, we used questions identified in the
American Hospital Association survey with ana-
logues to the stage 1 meaningful-use criteria and
calculated the number of hospitals in each insti-
tutional type that would be able to meet certain
stage 1 meaningful-use hospital criteria, regard-
less of actual eligibility for incentives.11 We used
the same statistical approaches defined above,
starting with bivariate models (using an analysis
of variance) and then building multivariable
models (where the results were qualitatively very
similar). Again, we present only the bivariate
analyses because those are the most relevant
for the policy discussion.
Limitations There are several limitations to
this study. First, although the survey attained a
nearly 70 percent response rate for short-term
acute care hospitals, response rates for the ineli -
gible hospitals were decidedly lower. We at-

tempted to statistically correct for potential non-
response bias through weighting; however,
these techniques are inherently imperfect. Non-
response was associated with characteristics of
hospitals that are less likely to have EHR sys-
tems. Therefore, we may have overestimated
the degree to which these ineligible hospitals
have adopted EHR systems.
Second, we used self-reported data from
health IT leaders in these institutions. Thus,
the data were not independently verified.
Third, the definitions of basic EHR system, com-
prehensive EHR system, and meaningful use were
largely designed for acute care hospitals. They
may not comprise the optimal set of functions to
facilitate high-quality, efficient care at ineligible
hospitals.
Fourth, we focused on whether hospitals had
adopted EHR systems rather than on how hos-
pitals used the systems. As a result, this report
may overestimate how much clinical care EHR
systems support.

Finally, we did not ask directly about the mean-
ingful-use objectives. Instead, we mapped our
survey responses to the objectives and measures
outlined by the Department of Health and Hu-
man Services. Our approach represents the cur-
rent best estimate of how many of these hospitals
might be able to meet meaningful-use criteria.
However, it is conservative for the majority of
individual criteria and thus may overestimate the
number of hospitals that could have met these
criteria at the time of the survey.
We may have understated the number of hos-
pitals that met the meaningful-use criterion of
being able to exchange clinical data electroni-
cally with other providers. The meaningful-use
rule requires only that hospitals demonstrate the
ability to engage in information exchange,
whereas our survey asked if hospitals were ac-
tively exchanging data with other providers. As a
result, we also report our findings without the
health information exchange requirement.
Study Results

Survey Size And Response Rate The American
Hospital Association survey of all nonfederal
hospitals included 4,629 general short-term
acute care hospitals, 401 long-term acute care
hospitals, 237 rehabilitation hospitals, and
466 psychiatric hospitals. The response rates
varied by hospital type: 36 percent for long-term
acute care hospitals; 46 percent for rehabilita-
tion hospitals; 52 percent for psychiatric hospi-
tals; and 68 percent for short-term acute care
hospitals.
Characteristics Of The Ineligible Hospi-
tals There were important differences in the
characteristics of hospitals based on their type
(Exhibit 1). For example, approximately half of
the acute care and psychiatric hospitals were
small; by comparison, more than 80 percent of
rehabilitation and long-term acute care hospitals
were small. There were modest differences
among hospital types with respect to the region
where they were located and their membership
in a provider system. There were large

by Rachel McCartney
differences in terms of their ownership, teaching
status, and urban versus rural location. For ex-
ample, although only 16 percent of the short-
term acute care hospitals were for profit, 67 per-
cent of rehabilitation hospitals and 75 percent of
long-term acute care hospitals were.
Overall Adoption We found a wide range in
the rates of EHR system adoption by hospital
type: Although 6 percent of long-term acute care
hospitals had adopted any EHR system (basic or
comprehensive), only 4 percent of rehabilitation
hospitals and just 2 percent of psychiatric hos-
pitals had any system (Exhibit 2). In contrast,
12 percent of short-term acute care hospitals had
any system in 2009.When we examined rates of

adoption of a comprehensive EHR system (func-
tions needed for the system to have a robust
impact on quality and efficiency), we found that
no psychiatric or rehabilitation hospitals met
these criteria and that just 2 percent of long-term
acute care hospitals had such systems. As re-
ported, 3 percent of short-term acute care hos-
pitals met these criteria.9
Selected EHR Capabilities Overall, the adop-
tion of specific EHR system functions also varied
greatly by hospital type. However, we found one
consistent pattern: Compared to short-term
acute care hospitals, ineligible hospitals had
lower rates of adoption for each of the twenty-
four individual functions that make up a com-
prehensive or basic EHR (Exhibit 3). For exam-
ple, 30 percent of short-term acute care hospitals
reported having computerized provider order
entry for medications in at least one clinical unit.
However, the numbers for the ineligible hospi-
tals ranged from 19 percent to 23 percent (for
difference across the four hospital subtypes,
p ¼ 0:004). Electronic discharge summaries—a
key function of sharing data among providers—

were available in 62 percent of short-term acute
care hospitals but in just 29–36 percent of ineli-
Exhibit 1
Hospital Characteristics Among Responders To The Health
Information Technology Survey, 2009
Characteristic
Long-term
acute care
(n = 144)
Rehabilitation
(n = 108)
Psychiatric
(n = 240)
Short-term
acute care
(n = 3,161)
AHA member 70% 83% 82% 98%

Size
Small (< 100 beds) 87 82 53 49
Medium (100–399 beds) 11 18 39 41
Large (≥ 400 beds) 2 0 8 10
Location
Northeast 9 18 20 13
Midwest 22 13 22 30
South 57 57 43 38
West 12 12 15 19
Urban hospital 93 92 84 56
Ownership
For-profit 75 67 37 16
Private, nonprofit 20 26 17 60
Public 5 7 46 24
Teaching hospital 4 15 21 23
Member of provider system 78 68 47 54
SOURCE Authors’ analyses of data from the 2009 American
Hospital Association (AHA) annual survey and Health
Information

Technology Supplement of Acute Care Hospitals in the United
States.
Exhibit 2
Electronic Health Record (EHR) System Adoption Rate Among
Hospitals, By Type Of
Hospital And EHR System Capability, 2009
P
er
ce
nt
Long-term acute care
Rehabilitation
Psychiatric
Short-term acute care
Comprehensive Basic Any
Hospital Association annual survey and
Health Information Technology Supplement of Acute Care

Hospitals in the United States. NOTE For
sample sizes, see Exhibit 1.
by Rachel McCartney
gible hospitals. For nearly every function exam-
ined, psychiatric hospitals appeared to have the
lowest rates of adoption.
Finally, ineligible hospitals were also much
more likely than eligible hospitals to report
not having plans to implement clinical decision
support and computerized provider order entry
functions, which have great potential to improve
quality and patient safety.12,13

Information Exchange The rate of health
information exchange with unaffiliated hospi-
tals and physicians was also much lower for
ineligible hospitals than eligible hospitals
(Exhibit 4). Although 17 percent of short-term
acute care hospitals reported that they were ac-
tively exchanging health information with other
providers, the comparable rates were just 11 per-
cent for long-term acute care hospitals, 5 percent
for rehabilitation hospitals, and 9 percent for
psychiatric hospitals.
Meaningful Use When we mapped our survey
questions to meaningful-use criteria, we found
that very few hospitals would be able to meet
meaningful-use requirements (Exhibit 5). None
of the psychiatric or rehabilitation hospitals had
all nine core and all three menu objectives re-
quired to meet meaningful-use criteria, and only
0.6 percent of long-term acute care hospitals and
2.1 percent of short-term acute care hospitals
could meet them. When we eliminated the need
to electronically exchange clinical data, there
were still no psychiatric or rehabilitation hospi-
tals that could meet the criteria, although the

rates among long-term acute careand short-term
hospitals increased to 3.5 percent and 3.3 per-
cent, respectively. Few psychiatric and rehabili-
tation hospitals were able to meet even the min-
imal core requirements.
Discussion
We found very low EHR system adoption rates
among hospitals ineligible for the incentives in
the HITECH provisions. These rates were less
than half of the rate among short-term acute care
hospitals. Low EHR system adoption rates
among short-term acute care (eligible) hospitals
have received much attention from policy mak-
ers. The 2–6 percent adoption rates among ineli-
gible providers suggest major challenges ahead.
The federal meaningful-use incentives will al-
most surely widen this gap.
We posit several important reasons why EHR
Exhibit 3
Hospitals In Which Electronic Health Record Capabilities Have
Been Implemented In At Least One Unit, 2009

Ineligible hospitals (%)a Eligible hospitals (%)b
Capability
Long-term
acute care Rehabilitation Psychiatric
Short-term
acute care
Medication list 48 49 33 65
Computerized provider order entry 23 22 19 30
Drug allergy alerts 47 39 35 62
Radiology images 61 29 7 83
Lab reports 62 46 32 83
Advance directives 17 15 12 48
Discharge summary 33 36 29 62
Hospital Association Health Information Technology
Supplement of Acute
Care Hospitals in the United States. NOTE For sample sizes, see
Exhibit 1. aIneligible hospitals do not meet meaningful-use
criteria and

therefore are not eligible to receive financial incentives under
the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical
Health
provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009. bEligible hospitals meet the necessary meaningful-use
criteria
and therefore may receive financial incentives. p < 0:01 for
differences among the four hospital types.
Exhibit 4
Percentage Of Hospitals That Actively Exchange Data
Electronically, By Type Of Hospital,
2009
P
er
ce
nt
Long-term acute care Rehabilitation Psychiatric Short-term
acute care

Hospital Association annual survey and
the Health Information Technology Supplement of Acute Care
Hospitals in the United States. NOTES
For sample sizes, see Exhibit 1. Hospitals are included that
responded: “Participate, we actively ex-
change data” when asked, “Does your hospital participate in any
regional arrangements to share elec-
tronic patient level clinical data through an electronic health
information exchange, such as an RHIO
(Regional Health Information Organization)?”
by Rachel McCartney
system adoption rates are so much lower among
ineligible hospitals. First, the hospitals might
not perceive the contribution that EHR systems
could make to improving the care they provide,
because data on the benefits of inpatient EHR

systems come mostly from short-term acute care
hospitals. Second, it is likely that providers and
vendors alike are uncertain about what type of
EHR system functionality these ineligible hospi-
tals need and would find appropriate.
Third, most vendors of EHR systems for hos-
pitals are focused on meeting the demands of
short-term acute care hospitals for products that
will enable them to meet meaningful-use crite-
ria. It is unlikely that the vendors will devote
substantial resources, at least in the short run,
to developing EHR systems for ineligible hos-
pitals.
The lower levels of engagement in health in-
formation exchange among ineligible hospitals
have important consequences. Electronically
exchanging health information has the ability
to enhance care coordination as patients move
among care settings. The full use of information
exchange depends on the electronic capabilities
of providers to both send and receive data. The
low levels of health information exchange
among ineligible providers probably reflects

both their lower levels of electronic capabilities,
such as fewer EHR systems, and their lack of
engagement in these efforts.
Given that health information exchange is a
clearly stated priority of the federal incentives—
and is one of the three components of meaning-
ful use highlighted in the HITECH provisions—
we expect that the rate of information exchange
among short-term acute care hospitals will rise
substantially over time. In the final rule for the
Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Rec-
ord Incentive Program, the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services states that “stage two
meaningful use requirements will include rigor-
ous expectations for health information ex-
change.”11(p44321) It is unlikely that the ineligible
hospitals will catch up.
Policy Implications Our findings have im-
portant policy implications. High and rising
health care costs, coupled with uneven quality,
represent one of the biggest domestic policy
challenges facing the nation. The HITECH pro-

visions seek to provide some of the necessary
infrastructure to advance the electronic use
and exchange of health information.
The use of EHR systems within a care setting
will be essential to the continued ability of ineli-
gible hospitals to provide high-quality and effi-
Exhibit 5
Hospitals’ Ability To Meet Meaningful-Use Criteria
Ineligible hospitals (%)a Eligible hospitals (%)b
Criterion
Long-term
acute care Rehabilitation Psychiatric
Short-term
acute care p value
Meaningful-use core functions
Use computerized provider order entry 23 22 19 30 < 0:04
Implement drug-drug and drug-allergy alerts 17 12 13 14 0.55

Maintain up-to-date problem list 23 18 22 46 < 0:001
Maintain active medication list 48 49 33 66 < 0:001
Key demographics 56 70 60 86 < 0:001
Discharge summary 33 36 29 62 < 0:001
Report hospital quality measures 14 16 12 26 < 0:001
Implement one clinical decision support 38 28 25 60 < 0:001
Information exchange 5 1 2 11 < 0:001
Total core functions 0.6 1.4 0.0 2.1 0.19
Total core functions except information exchange 5.5 2.8 0.0
4.2 0.78
Meaningful-use menu functions
Lab results 62 46 32 84 < 0:001
Medication reconciliation 30 33 22 53 < 0:001
Advance directives 17 15 12 49 < 0:001
Total menu functions 11.1 7.1 6.6 33.1 < 0:001
Totals
Total core and menu functions 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.30
Total functions except information exchange 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.3
0.60

Hospital Association annual survey and the Health Information
Technology Supplement of Acute Care Hospitals
in the United States. NOTE For sample sizes, see Exhibit 1.
aIneligible hospitals do not meet meaningful-use criteria and
therefore are not eligible to receive financial
incentives under the Health Information Technology for
Economic and Clinical Health provisions of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. bEligible
hospitals meet the necessary meaningful-use criteria and
therefore may receive financial incentives.
by Rachel McCartney
cient care. EHR systems help reduce medication
errors, promote compliance withevidence-based
treatments, and avoid duplication and ineffi-

ciency in receipt of services. As adoption of
EHR systems grows among the eligible hospi-
tals, there may be increasing pressure for the
ineligible hospitals to become meaningful users
of fully functional EHR systems.
A major cause of inefficiency in our health care
system is fragmentation and lack of coordination
across care settings.2 The Affordable Care Act
makes some efforts to address these challenges
by requiring the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services to experiment with new deliv-
ery and payment models, such as bundled pay-
ments and accountable care organizations. Fun-
damental to the success of any of these programs
is the ability to share clinical data across prov-
iders. These emerging payment models—along
with the needs of postacute care providers to
maintain relationships with acute care hospi-
tals—may force ineligible hospitals to adopt
EHR systems and use electronic health informa-
tion exchange, although they will be at a finan-
cial disadvantage because of their lack of HI-
TECH incentive payments.
By law, the HITECH incentive program for

EHR systems applies to only certain “eligible
hospitals” (acute care hospitals) and “eligible
professionals” (primarily physicians). Expand-
ing this program to include ineligible providers
might not be a viable option because of the costs
of making incentive payments to them.
The HITECH incentive programs managed by
the Office of the National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology are not restricted to
those health care providers who could be eligible
for theEHRsystemincentiveprogram. However,
initial federal efforts—such as technical assis-
tance through the regional extension centers—
were primarily directed to the eligible providers.
The Office of the National Coordinator awarded
more than half a billion dollars in grants to states
and state-designated entities to facilitate health
information exchange, primarily among eligible
hospitals and professionals.
At the same time, the Office of the National
Coordinator recognized the importance of
advancing the exchange of health information

on behalf of patients who receive services from
postacute and long-term care providers, as well
as by other providers ineligible for EHR system
incentives. As a result, in January 2011 the office
provided $7 million in challenge grants to four
states to focus on health information exchange
for transitions in care that involve nursing
homes and home health agencies.14 In addition,
a few of the Beacon Community Programs, which
are health IT pilots, include postacute care, long-
term care, and behavioral health care provid-
ers.15 The Office of the National Coordinator de-
scribes a broader set of its activities for ineligible
providers on its website.16
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Ser-
vices anticipates potentially offering assistance
to Medicare providers that are ineligible for fi-
nancial incentives, through a future contract
with Quality Improvement Organizations. These
organizations contract with Medicare to help
providers improve quality, but they may also
be able to function as entities that help provide
technical assistance to ineligible providers as

they adopt and use EHR systems.
Federal and state policy makers could consider
other ways to further advance and accelerate the
use of EHR systems by all health care providers.
Policy makers could adopt health IT standards
and EHR system certification criteria appropri-
ate for the ineligible providers. This would pro-
vide important guidance to ineligible providers
and health IT vendors. In addition, establishing
rigorous health information exchange require-
ments for eligible providers should increase the
value of health information exchange for all
providers, which will then be able to send and
receive important clinical data.
State health information exchange programs
could expand their focus to include ineligible
providers. In addition, establishing low-interest
loan programs for the acquisition and use of
certified EHR systems by ineligible providers
could accelerate the acquisition and use of these
systems. These actions may encourage ineligible
providers to adopt and use EHR systems.
Whether investments in the health IT infra-

structure will be sufficient to enable all health
care providers to become meaningful users of
health IT is an area requiring study. The Office
of the National Coordinator uses data from the
National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to
track changes in physicians’ adoption rates of
EHR systems and data from the American Hos-
pital Association annual survey to track EHR
system adoption rates by acute care hospitals.
As this study has shown, the hospital data can
also be used to analyze adoption rates among
ineligible hospitals.
The National Home Health and Hospice Care
Survey includes questions on the use of EHR
systems by home health and hospice care prov-
iders. The National Nursing Home Survey cre-
ates opportunities to assess trends in EHR sys-
tem adoption rates by nursing homes. The
nursing home survey includes a question on
the use of electronic information systems. How-
ever, this question should be refined to provide
reliable, valid, and national data on the adoption
of EHR systems in nursing homes.17,18

by Rachel McCartney
Including questions in national surveys re-
garding the meaningful use of EHR systems
would enable comparisons of meaningful use
across provider types as well as analyses of mean-
ingful use appropriate for each provider type.
Fielding questions concerning the adoption of
EHR systems by nursing homes and home health
care providers would fill an important informa-
tion gap and facilitate analyses of trends in EHR
adoption by these providers.
Conclusion We examined rates of adoption of
EHR systems and engagement in health infor-
mation exchange among inpatient providers
ineligible for financial incentives and found dis-

mally low rates. Given the central importance of
the availability of electronic data in our national
efforts to reform the delivery system, these find-
ings have important implications: By leaving out
ineligible providers, the nation risks building a
new digital divide in which key providers, which
already have low levels of electronic clinical data,
may fall further behind.
To develop a nationwide health IT infrastruc-
ture that provides timely and complete informa-
tion at the time and place of care, electronic
clinical data will need to be available across all
sites of care. Consideration should be given to
measuring and advancing the use of EHR sys-
tems and health information exchange by prov-
iders ineligible for federal EHR incentives. ▪
The authors are grateful for the access
to the survey data provided by the
American Hospital Association.
NOTES

1 Leonard K. Excluded groups want in
on health information technology
funding . iWatch News [serial on the
Internet], 2011 May 23 [cited 2012
Feb 10]. Available from: http://
www.iwatchnews.org/2011/05/ 23/
4697/excluded-groups-want-health-
information-technology-funding
2 Bogasky S. Examining relationships
in an integrated hospital system.
Waltham (MA): RTI
International; 2008.
3 Kahn JM, Benson NM, Appleby D,
Carson SS, Iwashyna TJ. Long-term
acute care hospital utilization after
critical illness. JAMA. 2010;303(22):
2253–9.
4 Bennett RE, Tuttle M, May K,
Harvell J, Coleman EA (University of
Colorado Health Sciences Center,
Denver, CO). Health information
exchange in post-acute and long-

term care case study findings: final
report. Washington (DC): Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services,
Office of Disability, Aging and Long-
Term Care Policy; 2007 Sep. (Con-
tract No. HHS-100-03-0028).
5 Kramer A, Bennett R, Fish R, Lin CT,
Floersch N, Conway K, et al. Case
studies of electronic health records
in post-acute and long-term care.
Washington (DC): Department of
Health and Human Services; 2004
Aug. (Contract No. HHS-100-
03-0028).
6 Resnick HE, Alwan M. Use of health
information technology in home
health and hospice agencies: United
States, 2007. J Am Med Inform As-
soc. 2010;17(4):389–95.
7 Resnick HE, Manard BB, Stone RI,
Alwan M. Use of electronic infor-
mation systems in nursing homes:

United States, 2004. J Am Med In-
form Assoc. 2009;16(2):179–86.
8 Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Kralovec
PD, Joshi MS. A progress report on
electronic health records in U.S.
hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood).
2010;29(10):1951–7.
9 Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Campbell
EG, Donelan K, Rao SR, Ferris TG,
et al. Use of electronic health records
in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med.
2009;360(16):1628–38.
10 To access the Appendix, click on the
Appendix link in the box to the right
of the article online.
11 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services. Medicare and Medicaid
programs; Electronic Health Record
Incentive Program; final rule. Fed
Regist. 2010;75(144):44314–584.

12 Kaushal R, Shojania KG, Bates DW.
Effects of computerized physician
order entry and clinical decision
support systems on medication
safety: a systematic review. Arch In-
tern Med. 2003;163(12):1409–16.
13 Eslami S, de Keizer NF, Abu-Hanna
A. The impact of computerized
physician medication order entry in
hospitalized patients—a systematic
review. Int J Med Inform. 2008;
77(6):365–76.
14 Office of the National Coordinator
for Health Information Technology.
Health Information Exchange Chal-
lenge Grant Program [Internet].
Washington (DC): Department of
Health and Human Services; [last
updated 2011 Feb 23; cited 2012
healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt?
open=512&mode=2&objID=3378

15 Office of the National Coordinator
for Health Information Technology.
Beacon Community Program [Inter-
net]. Washington (DC): Department
of Health and Human Services; [last
updated 2011 May 19; cited 2012
healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt/
community/healthit_hhs_gov__
onc_beacon_community_
program__improving_health_
through_health_it/1805
16 Hogin E, Daniel JG. The many
meaningful uses of health informa-
tion technology. Health IT Buzz
[blog on the Internet]. Washington
(DC): Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of the Na-
tional Coordinator; 2011 May 18
[cited 2012 Feb 10]. Available from:
http://www.healthit.gov/buzz-blog/
meaningful-use/meaningful-health-

information-technology/
#axzz1VOENsSB3
17 Richard A, Kaehny M, May K,
Kramer A (University of Colorado,
Denver, CO). Literature review and
synthesis: existing surveys on health
information technology, including
surveys on health information tech-
nology in nursing homes and home
health. Washington (DC): Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services,
Office of Disability, Aging, and Long-
Term Care Policy; 2009 Feb. (Con-
tract No. HHS-100-03-0028).
18 Kramer A, Kaehny M, Richard A,
May K (University of Colorado,
Denver, CO). Survey questions for
EHR adoption and use in nursing
homes: final report. Washington
(DC): Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of Disability,
Aging, and Long-Term Care Policy;
2010 Jan. (Contract No. HHS-100-

03-0028).
by Rachel McCartney
ABOUT THE AUTHORS: LARRY WOLF, JENNIE HARVELL
&
ASHISH K. JHA
Larry Wolf is a
health information
technology
strategist at
Kindred Healthcare.
In this month’s Health Affairs,
Larry Wolf and coauthors examine

the use of electronic health records
by inpatient providers that are
ineligible for the federal incentives
made available to others. The
authors found that the rate of
adoption among those ineligible
providers, which includes long-
term acute hospitals and
psychiatric hospitals, was “dismally
low.” They recommend additional
measures that state and federal
policy makers should consider to
boost adoption by these providers.
Wolf is a health information
technology (IT) strategist at
Kindred Healthcare who focuses on
clinical systems across the
spectrum of care. He is also the
chair of the Federation of American
Hospitals’ Health IT Task Force,
cochair of the Healthcare
Information and Management
Systems Society’s Interoperability
Showcase Planning Committee, a

member of the American Health
Care Association’s Health IT Task
Force, and a member of the
American Health Information
Management Association’s
Emerging Issues Practice Council.
Wolf has a master’s degree in
computer and information sciences
from the University of
Massachusetts.
Jennie Harvell is a
senior policy
analyst at the
Department of
Health and Human
Services.
Jennie Harvell is a senior policy
analyst at the Department of
Health and Human Services’ Office
of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation. Her
responsibilities include leading the

department’s efforts to integrate
health IT standards into Medicare
and Medicaid postacute care and
long-term care programs. She holds
a master’s degree in educational
administration, supervision, and
curriculum from the University of
Maryland.
Ashish K. Jha is an
associate professor
of health policy at
the Harvard School
of Public Health.
Ashish Jha is both an associate
professor of health policy at the
Harvard School of Public Health
and an associate professor of
medicine at Harvard Medical
School. His research interest is in
the quality of care provided by
health care systems, focusing on
health care disparities as a marker
of poor quality of care and health

IT as a potential solution for
improving care.
Jha also is an associate physician
at Brigham and Women’s Hospital
and a staff physician in the
Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare
System. Additionally, he is a
special assistant to the secretary of
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
He was awarded the 2009 Young
Investigator of the Year award by
the Society of General Internal
Medicine.
Jha earned his medical degree
from Harvard Medical School and a
master’s degree in public health
from the Harvard School of Public
Health.
by Rachel McCartney

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Paper Instructions
You will have to write an informative research paper about a
current advancement or issue in your field. This may be a new
form of technology, device, cure, medication, software,
practice, etc. For example, if you are in the filed of education,
you may wish to do a research paper on adaptative technologies
like MATHia or ALEKS, which are online learning tools
students can use to get personalized tutoring and lessons in
Math based on their growth indicators.
growth indicators.
The paper must be 3-4 pages or 750-1000 words. It must be in
MLA format, 12pt- font, doubled space. You MUST include a
works cited page with at least 6 scholarly sources. You should
cite sources at least three times in each supporting paragraph.

Make sure your sources are from the online library databases.
DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA as a source. Visit owl.purdue.edu
for assistance with citing your sources in your paper. You
should submit your research paper to the writing lab for review
before submitting your final draft to your professor.
Your research paper topic and thesis must be approved before
you submit your paper. Papers submitted without an approval
will receive an automatic zero. If you do not complete a
research paper, you will not be able to pass the class.
Good Luck!
Nursing EHR Satisfaction Takes a Major Swing to
the Positive, Black Book User Survey
Publication info: PR Newswire ; New York [New York]10 May
2018.
ProQuest document link

FULL TEXT
TAMPA, Fla., May 10, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- In mid-2014,
nurse dissatisfaction with inpatient electronic health
record systems had escalated to an all-time high of ninety-two
percent, according to a Black Book EHR Loyalty
survey. Disruption in productivity and workflow had also
negatively influenced job dissatisfaction according to
nurses in eighty-four percent of US Hospitals. Eighty-five
percent of nurses were struggling with continually flawed
EHR systems.
Fast forward to Q2 2018 and nurses, the most instrumental
stakeholders of hospital EHR success and a group
rarely surveyed as the prime users of inpatient technologies,
have swung to the positive on health technologies.
7,409 staff nurses and managers responded to Black Book's
2018 EHR Loyalty Poll addressing the past difficulties

of systems largely selected by non-clinicians and that impact on
patient care.
Black Book polled nearly fifteen thousand licensed registered
nurses from forty states in three separate surveys,
all utilizing implemented hospital EHRs over the last four
years.
Survey respondents also ranked the vendor performance of
eleven inpatient EHR systems from a nursing
functionality and usability perspective. Cerner ranked first in
hospital nursing satisfaction for the third
consecutive year.
"Technology can help nurses do their jobs more effectively or it
can be a highly intrusive burden on the hospital
nurse delivering patient care," said Brown.
Despite the years of frustration noted in the annual Black Book
EHR user surveys, ninety-six percent of nurse

respondents said they would not want to go back to using paper
records indicating, in part, the perceived value
electronic health records adds to delivering higher quality care.
EHR acceptance by nurses has shifted since 2015
when twenty-six percent of nurses were hoping for a return to
paper records.
Eighty-eight percent of nurses believe their hospitals' IT
departments and administrators respond quickly to
making changes in the EHR that the nurses recognize as
vulnerabilities in the documentation, as compared to
thirty percent in 2016.
"With so many unique software interfaces from medical
equipment and the multiple departmental applications,
siloed health data sets, and current cybersecurity initiatives, it's
no surprise that hospital nurses are, at times,
discouraged but the majority of nurses responding to the 2018

survey see the value in their EHR fluency," said
Brown.
Eighty-five percent of nurses now see competency with at least
one EHR as a highly-sought employment skill for
an RN, and sixty-five percent believe nurses with multiple
fluencies are deemed a highly superior job candidate
currently by health systems.
EHRs have become an advantage for some hospitals in
attracting top nursing talent. Registered nurses have also
developed preferences more so for the EHR product and vendor
as a working environment standard than for the
hospital itself, according to eighty percent of job-seeking
registered nurses which reported that the reputation of
the hospital's EHR system is a top three consideration in their
choice of where they will work.
A lack of IT resources is still impacting nursing productivity.

Eighty-two percent of nurses in inpatient facilities
stated they do not have computers in each room or hand-
held/mobile devices to aid in the EHR requirement, down
https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/nursing-ehr-satisfaction-
takes-major-swing/docview/2036829154/se-
2?accountid=158399
2?accountid=158399
from ninety-three percent in 2016.
Among those hospitals outsourcing the EHR help desk, twenty-
one percent of nurses reported that their
experiences with EHR's call center do not meet their
expectations of communication skills and knowledge of the
product, a significant improvement from eighty-eight percent in
2016.
Nurses that work in hospital Emergency Rooms, Oncology,

Labor &Delivery, ICU/CCU, Neonatal, Radiology
&Diagnostics, and Neuro/Ortho units reported the highest user
satisfaction in usability and functionality.
Psychiatry/Mental Health, Ambulatory Clinics, Anesthesia and
general Medical/Surgical floors indicated the
highest continued dissatisfaction and negative feedback on their
hospitals' technology.
About Black Book
Black Book Market Research LLC, its founder, management and
staff do not own or hold any financial interest in
any of the vendors covered and encompassed in the surveys it
conducts. Black Book reports the results of the
collected satisfaction and client experience rankings in
publication and to media prior to vendor notification of
rating results and does not solicit vendor participation fees,
review fees, inclusion or briefing charges, and/or

vendor collaboration as Black Book polls vendors' clients.
In 2009, Black Book began polling the healthcare user and
client experience of now over 600,000 healthcare
software and services users. Black Book expanded its survey
prowess and reputation of independent, unbiased
crowd-sourced surveying to IT and health records professionals,
physician practice administrators, nurses,
financial leaders, executives and hospital information
technology managers.
For Black Book vendor satisfaction rating methodology,
auditing, resources, comprehensive research and ranking
data see www.blackbookmarketresearch.com
Related Files
NURSING EHR USABILITY AND SATISFACTION 2018
SURVEY RESULTS BLACK BOOK.pdf
View original content with multimedia:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nursing-ehr-
satisfaction-takes-
a-major-swing-to-the-positive-black-book-user-survey-
300646654.html
SOURCE Black Book Market Research
CREDIT: Black Book Market Research
DETAILS
Subject: Hospitals; Polls &surveys; Software; Electronic health
records; Usability; Nursing;
Nurses; Market research
Business indexing term: Subject: Market research; Industry:
62211 : General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
54191 : Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling
Location: United States--US

Classification: 62211: General Medical and Surgical Hospitals;
54191: Marketing Research and
Public Opinion Polling
Publication title: PR Newswire; New York
Publication year: 2018
Publication date: May 10, 2018
Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest
Dateline: TAMPA, Fla.
Publisher: PR Newswire Association LLC
Place of publication: New York

Country of publication: United States, New York
Publication subject: Business And Economics
Source type: Wire Feeds
Language of publication: English
Document type: News
ProQuest document ID: 2036829154
Document URL: https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/nursing-
ehr-satisfaction-takes-major-
swing/docview/2036829154/se-2?accountid=158399
Copyright: Copyright PR Newswire Association LLC May 10,
2018
Last updated: 2020-11-16
Database: ABI/INFORM Dateline

2?accountid=158399
2?accountid=158399
https://www.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions
http://about.proquest.com/ go/pqissupportcontactNursing EHR
Satisfaction Takes a Major Swing to the Positive, Black Book
User Survey

Doe 1 John Doe Professor O. Jean ENC1102 15 J

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Doe 1 John Doe Professor O. Jean ENC1102 15 J

Similar to Doe 1 John Doe Professor O. Jean ENC1102 15 J (7)

More from MargaritoWhitt221

More from MargaritoWhitt221 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Doe 1 John Doe Professor O. Jean ENC1102 15 J