Poster Presentation

Students this project will allow you to formulate and hypothetically develop your own research project. The purpose of this project is for the student to follow all of the different steps in a research project on an already published article and presented as a poster presentation. A poster session or poster presentation is the presentation of research information by an individual or representatives of research teams at a congress or conference with an academic or professional focus. The work is usually peer reviewed. Poster sessions are particularly prominent at scientific conferences such as medical congresses. 

Students will select the same article from week 7 and create a poster presentation that include the below information: I upload a template for the poster

The outline of the poster should include the following tabs (minimum requirements)

Abstract Outline: 

-Title of Project

-Problem Statement: what is the problem that needs fixing?

-Purpose of the Project

-Research Question(s)

-Hypothesis

-Methodology (Qualitative vs. Quantitative)

-Steps in implementing your project

-Limitations

Results (Pretend results)

-Conclusion

-References

I have attached an example of a poster presentation for guidance. 

Criterion

Outstanding 4

Very Good 3

Good 2

Unacceptable 1

Score

Completeness

Complete in all respects; reflects all   requirements

Complete in most respects; reflects most   requirements

Incomplete many respects; reflects few   requirements

Incomplete in most respects; does not reflect requirements

Understanding

Demonstrates excellent understanding of the   topic(s) and issue(s)

Demonstrates an accomplished understanding of the   topic(s) and issue(s)

Demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the   topic(s) and issue(s)

Demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the   topic(s) and issue(s)

Analysis

Presents an insightful and through analysis of the issue (s) identified

Presents a thorough analysis of most of the   issue(s) identified

Presents a superficial analysis of some of the issue(s)   identified

Presents an incomplete analysis of the issue(s)   identified.

Evaluation

Makes appropriate and powerful connections between   the issue(s) identified and the concept(s) studied

Makes appropriate connections between the issue(s)   identified and the concept(s) studied

Makes appropriate but somewhat vague connections   between the issue(s) identified and the concept(s) studied

Makes little or no connection between the issue(s)   identified and the concept(s) studied.

Opinion

Supports opinion with strong arguments and   evidence; presents a balanced and critical view; interpretation is both   reasonable and objective

Supports opinion with reasons and evidence;   presents a fairly balanced view; interpretation is both reasonable and   objective

Supports opinion with limited reasons and   evidence; presents a somewhat one-sided argument

Supports opinion with few reasons and little   evidence; argument is one-sided and not objective.

Recommendations

Presents detailed, realistic, and appropriate   recommendations clearly supported by the information presented and concepts   studied

Presents specific, realistic and appropriate   recommendation supported by the information presented and the concepts   studied

Presents realistic or appropriate recommendation   supported by the information presented and the concepts studied

Presents realistic or appropriate recommendation   with little, if any, support from the information and the concepts studied.

Grammar and Spelling

Minimal spelling and grammar errors

Some spelling and grammar errors

Noticeable spelling and grammar errors

Unacceptable number of spelling and grammar errors

APA guidelines

Uses APA guidelines accurately and consistently to   cite sources

Uses APA guidelines with minor violations to cite   sources

Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA guidelines

Does not use APA guidelines

Total

Titleof Project

Presenter Name

University name

Introduction and Problem

Variables

Descriptive Data

Results

Results (cont

.

)

Clinical Questions/PICOT

Discussion

Project Limitations

Conclusion and Recommendations

Purpose of the Project

The data analysis was in line with the needs of the project: statistical tests, including t-test and Wilcoxon signed ranks, were employed to determine if there were statistically significant differences between pre- and post-test measurements

.

This way, the relationships between the independent and dependent variables were reliably inferred (Polit & Beck, 2017)

Data types:

Survey: quantitative, ordinal (Likert scale).

Reports: quantitative, ratio (number of mistakes).

Data analysis approaches:

Software: SPSS.

Survey: Wilcoxon signed ranks test.

Reports: paired t-test.

Data Analysis

The project employed four Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, three Medical Doctors, and one Physician Assistant who exhibited significant resistance to the use of EHR.

References

.

.

Several studies have shown the benefits of the use of electronic health records (EHR) for patients’ safety, as well as their ability to improve efficiency in primary care settings (Porterfield, Engelbert, & Coustasse, 2014). Regardless of the positive effects of the implementation of EHR, health care providers have moved slowly to adopt this technology (King, Patel, Jamoom, & Furukawa, 2014). Practitioners who do not want to adopt EHR, especially electronic prescription, can endanger patient safety.

Medication errors, in turn, are a serious issue that causes numerous safety incidents in primary care. Studies have shown that the use of EHR significantly reduces the number of prescription errors that can harm patients (Liao et al., 2017). Palabindala, Pamarthy, and Jonnalagadda (2016) showed that the use of EHR could reduce medication error while also resulting in improved communications between patients and healthcare teams

The purpose of this quantitative quasi-experimental project was to determine if there was a relationship between the application of an educational program and the improvement of practitioners’ perception of EHR usability, as well as the reduction of the number of prescription medication errors, at a medical group practice in the Southeastern of the United States (US).

The PICOT question created for the project was as follows: (P) Among healthcare practitioners, (I) how does the implementation of an educational program in a primary care medical center in the Southeast of the US (C) compared to the pre-intervention measurements in the prior four weeks (O) influences primary care practitioners’ perceptions of the usability of EHR and the incidence of prescription medication errors (T) within four weeks of participating in the program?

The following clinical questions guide this quantitative project:

Q1: How does the implementation of an educational program influence the perceptions of primary care practitioners regarding EHR usability?

Q2: How does the implementation of an educational program influence prescription medication error incidence?

Variable 1: Quality improvement educational program (independent)

Variable 2: Primary care practitioners’ perception of EHR usability (dependent)

Variable3: Number of prescription medication errors (dependent).

The educational program can enhance the participants’ perceptions regarding EHR, but the described project cannot reject the null hypothesis that the intervention had no effects on the medication error rates. However, since the project was constricted by significant limitations, this finding is not conclusive.

Some of the research recommendations include the proposal to increase the sample size, have a greater timeframe for future projects, and consider randomizing the sample into two groups.

The project can also be used to recommend educational EHR efforts for the reduction of EHR resistance and the specific program that has been tested for the same purpose.

The sample was small (8 participants) and could not be expanded because the facility was small.

The data collection process was limited by the short time allocated to observing the results (4 weeks)

The project employed a quasi-experimental design. Since its sample was so small, trying to split it further was not feasible.

King, J., Patel, V., Jamoom, E. W., & Furukawa, M. F. (2014). Clinical benefits of electronic health record use: National findings. Health Services Research, 49(1pt2), 392–404. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12135

Liao, T. V., Rabinovich, M., Abraham, P., Perez, S., DiPlotti, C., Han, J., … Honig, E. (2017). Evaluation of medication errors with implementation of electronic health record technology in the medical intensive care unit. Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials, 9, 31-40. doi: 10.2147/OAJCT.S131211

Porterfield, A., Engelbert, K., & Coustasse, A. (2014). Electronic prescribing: Improving the efficiency and accuracy of prescribing in the ambulatory care setting. Perspectives in Health Information Management, 2014, 1-13

Palabindala, V., Pamarthy, A., & Jonnalagadda, N. R. (2016). Adoption of electronic health records and barriers. Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives, 6(5), 1-3. doi: 10.3402/jchimp.v6.32643

Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

The survey contained 11 individual items and used a Likert scale in which 1 stood for an extremely negative assessment of an aspect of usability or usefulness and 5 referred to an extremely positive one. The summary of the mean and standard deviation for each of the items before and after the intervention is presented in Table 1.
. The raw data indicate that the most common errors for the clinic include incorrect dosage, incorrect drug, and drug-drug interaction, as well as incorrect frequency and drug omission.
Table 4 presents the results of the paired t-test analysis of the errors that occurred and those that were reported. No statistically significant differences were found for either pair (p>0.05). Thus, the findings do not suggest that the program had an impact on medication error rates; a relationship between the independent variable and medication errors was not found.
Example changes in pre- and post-test scores can be found in Figure 4. Table 2 summarizes the results of analyzing the survey items with the Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 demonstrate statistically significant results (p<=0.05). Therefore, the intervention improved the perceptions of the participants regarding the effect of EHR on one’s performance and job effectiveness, the usefulness of EHR, the clarity of interacting with the system, the ease of EHR use, and the use of EHR for clinical care and research. The relationship between the independent variable (program) and perceptions (one of the dependent variables) was found. Figure 1. The occupations of the participants. Figure 2. Age of the participants. Figure 3. Gender of the participants. Figure 4. Example changes in survey results before and after the intervention. As had been planned, the data were collected before and after the intervention using an already established survey tool and the clinic’s pharmacy call reports regarding medication errors. TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008 www.PosterPresentations.com 1 Table 2 Survey Analysis Results Summary Item Significance (1-tailed) Q1 0.04 Q2 0.07 Q3 0.04 Q4 0.04 Q5 0.05 Q6 0.03 Q7 0.04 Q8 0.04 Q9 0.03 Q10 0.04 Q11 0.244 Table 1 Survey Summary Item Pre-Test Post-Test Mean St. Deviation Mean St. Deviation Q1 2.25 0.707 4.75 0.463 Q2 2.13 0.991 4.38 0.744 Q3 1.75 0.707 4.38 0.744 Q4 2.25 0.707 4.75 0.463 Q5 2.13 0.991 5 0 Q6 1.63 0.744 4.75 0.463 Q7 2.38 0.744 4.38 0.518 Q8 2 0.756 4.13 0.641 Q9 2.25 0.886 5 0 Q10 1.63 0.518 5 0 Q11 4 0.756 4.38 0.518 Table 3 Error Data Summary Error Type Number Occurred Number Occurred Number Reported Number Reported Incorrect Drug 3 4 3 4 Incorrect Dose 5 3 6 4 Incorrect Generic Selection 0 1 0 1 Outdated Product 0 0 0 0 Drug Unavailable/Omission 3 2 2 3 Incorrect Dosage Form 1 2 0 3 Incorrect Patient 3 3 2 4 Allergic Drug Reaction 1 0 1 0 Drug-drug Interaction 4 2 4 2 Incorrect time 1 2 1 2 Incorrect Route 1 2 1 2 Incorrect Frequency 3 3 4 3 Illegible or Ambiguous Prescription 3 0 4 0 Other 3 4 3 4 Total 31 28 31 32 Table 4 Total Errors Analysis Results: Paired Samples Test Sig. (2-tailed) Pair 1 .587 Pair 2 .846

Poster Presentation

Students this project will allow you to formulate and hypothetically develop your own research project. The purpose of this project is for the student to follow all of the different steps in a research project on an already published article and presented as a poster presentation. A poster session or poster presentation is the presentation of research information by an individual or representatives of research teams at a congress or conference with an academic or professional focus. The work is usually peer reviewed. Poster sessions are particularly prominent at scientific conferences such as medical congresses.

Students will select the same article from week 7 and create a poster presentation that include the below information: I upload a template for the poster

The outline of the poster should include the following tabs (minimum requirements)

Abstract Outline:

-Title of Project

-Problem Statement: what is the problem that needs fixing?

-Purpose of the Project

-Research Question(s)

-Hypothesis

-Methodology (Qualitative vs. Quantitative)

-Steps in implementing your project

-Limitations

Results (Pretend results)

-Conclusion

-References

I have attached an example of a poster presentation for guidance.

Criterion

Outstanding 4

Very Good 3

Good 2

Unacceptable 1

Score

Completeness

Complete in all respects; reflects all requirements

Complete in most respects; reflects most requirements

Incomplete many respects; reflects few requirements

Incomplete in most respects; does not reflect requirements

Understanding

Demonstrates excellent understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)

Demonstrates an accomplished understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)

Demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)

Demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)

Analysis

Presents an insightful and through analysis of the issue (s) identified

Presents a thorough analysis of most of the issue(s) identified

Presents a superficial analysis of some of the issue(s) identified

Presents an incomplete analysis of the issue(s) identified.

Evaluation

Makes appropriate and powerful connections between the issue(s) identified and the concept(s) studied

Makes appropriate connections between the issue(s) identified and the concept(s) studied

Makes appropriate but somewhat vague connections between the issue(s) identified and the concept(s) studied

Makes little or no connection between the issue(s) identified and the concept(s) studied.

Opinion

Supports opinion with strong arguments and evidence; presents a balanced and critical view; interpretation is both reasonable and objective

Supports opinion with reasons and evidence; presents a fairly balanced view; interpretation is both reasonable and objective

Supports opinion with limited reasons and evidence; presents a somewhat one-sided argument

Supports opinion with few reasons and little evidence; argument is one-sided and not objective.

Recommendations

Presents detailed, realistic, and appropriate recommendations clearly supported by the information presented and concepts studied

Presents specific, realistic and appropriate recommendation supported by the information presented and the concepts studied

Presents realistic or appropriate recommendation supported by the information presented and the concepts studied

Presents realistic or appropriate recommendation with little, if any, support from the information and the concepts studied.

Grammar and Spelling

Minimal spelling and grammar errors

Some spelling and grammar errors

Noticeable spelling and grammar errors

Unacceptable number of spelling and grammar errors

APA guidelines

Uses APA guidelines accurately and consistently to cite sources

Uses APA guidelines with minor violations to cite sources

Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA guidelines

Does not use APA guidelines

Total

Titleof Project

Presenter Name

University name

Introduction and Problem

Variables

Descriptive Data

Results

Results (cont

.

)

Clinical Questions/PICOT

Discussion

Project Limitations

Conclusion and Recommendations

Purpose of the Project

Data Analysis

References

.

.

.
.

TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008

www.PosterPresentations.com

1