DNP 805 Topic 5 Discussion 1
DNP 805 Topic 5 Discussion 1
Select a specific clinical problem and post a clinical question that could potentially be answered using data mining. Identify data mining techniques you would apply to this challenge, and provide your rationale. Are there any specific data mining techniques you would not use? Support your decision.
According et al. (2019), data mining refers to analyzing large sets of data to identify valuable and understandable patterns. Such patterns can aid in forecasting trends and help with improving product safety and usability, and patient experience, and have proven to be effective in medicine and the healthcare industry. Electronic health records have tremendously improved data collection and has contributed to data mining to prevent and reduce medical errors. A question that may be answered through data mining is as follows: Does telemedicine help reduce the number of hospital readmissions for patients with congestive heart failure (CHF)? According to Reddy and Borlaug (2019), CHF is a common cause of hospitalization that accounts for almost $30 billion of expenditure in the United States. Over five million individuals are affected by CHF and studies show that there has been an increase in readmission rates for those who were hospitalized related to the disease (Garcia, 2017). Data mining techniques that may be used include tracking patterns, association, and prediction. A technique that I would not consider using is clustering analysis.
Great post –The work to reduce hospital readmissions is going to be ongoing for a long time because of the complexity of CHF, this is an issue with all hospitals. To reduce the number of preventable readmissions, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiated the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) in 2012. Also, they realized that only 30% of all the patients with CHF had a scheduled follow-up appointment with the PCP or cardiologist on discharge and that of all those who were discharged, only 37% kept their follow-up appointments and, about 41% were lost to follow-up visits. The hospitals started an intervention program to reduce the readmission rate by making sure that all the CHF patients had follow up appointments and they started a weekly or biweekly phone call to the patients, telemonitoring, and home visits.
Finally, when discharged, approximately 60% of CHF patients had a scheduled follow-up appointment with a PCP or cardiologist within two weeks. At the conclusion of the intervention, approximately 56% of all discharged patients kept their follow-up appointments, and they were able to reduce the 30-day readmission rates for CHF patients to 14%, a 50% reduction from the previous rates. These interventions have been shown to help reduce the readmission rates of CHF patients, as well as having an adequate number of nursing staff to assist with education, medical therapy optimization, and intervention implementation (Nair, Lak, Hasan, Gunasekaran, Babar, & Gopalakrishna, 2020).
Also Check Out:
Name: Discussion Rubric
Excellent
90–100 |
Good
80–89 |
Fair
70–79 |
Poor
0–69 |
|||
Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. |
31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references. |
0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references. |
||
Main Posting:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
||
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation |
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date. |
||
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
First Response:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
||
First Response:
Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
||
Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
Second Response: Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
||
Second Response: Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
||
Total Points: 100 | ||||||
Name: Discussion Rubric