In A 4 To 5 Page Project Proposal For Leadership 591946 ✓ Solved

In a 4- to 5-page project proposal written to the leadership

In a 4- to 5-page project proposal written to the leadership of your healthcare organization, propose a nursing informatics project for your organization that you advocate to improve patient outcomes or patient care efficiency.

Your project proposal should include the following:

  • Describe the project you propose.
  • Identify the stakeholders impacted by this project.
  • Explain the patient outcome(s) or patient-care efficiencies this project is aimed at improving, and explain how this improvement would occur. Be specific and provide examples.
  • Identify the technologies required to implement this project and explain why.
  • Identify the project team (by roles) and explain how you would incorporate the nurse informaticist in the project team.

Paper For Above Instructions

Project description: The central aim is to design, implement, and evaluate a sepsis early-warning and treatment optimization workflow embedded in the EHR. Key components include (a) data-driven recognition of sepsis indicators from vital signs, labs, and clinical notes; (b) real-time alerts delivered to nursing and medical teams with concise individualized recommendations; (c) standardized, evidence-based order sets for early antibiotic administration, fluid management, and escalation of care; and (d) a nurse informaticist-led governance structure to ensure clinical relevance, usability, and workflow fit. The project would begin with a needs assessment, followed by iterative design, pilot testing in one unit, and hospital-wide scaling if outcomes are favorable. This approach is consistent with health IT implementation best practices and the patient-safety focus described in foundational IOM reports (IOM, 2001; IOM, 2011).

Stakeholders: Successful execution requires engagement across multiple groups. Bedside nurses and nurse leaders will act as clinical champions and champions of usability; physicians, particularly intensivists and emergency physicians, will partner to refine clinical decision support (CDS) and order-set logic; the information technology (IT) department will handle data integration, system stability, and security; the pharmacy team will participate in antibiotic stewardship and formulary considerations; quality improvement personnel will monitor process and outcomes; patients and families will benefit from clearer, timelier care; and hospital leadership will sponsor adoption and allocate resources. The nurse informaticist will serve as the interface among clinical staff, IT, and governance bodies, ensuring the technology respects nursing workflows and enhances care delivery (ANA, 2015).

Outcomes and how improvement occurs: The expected patient outcome improvements include reduced time to first antibiotic administration for septic patients, lower sepsis-related mortality, shorter hospital length of stay, and enhanced patient safety through timely recognition of deterioration. Process improvements include faster recognition of sepsis symptoms, streamlined order entry, and decreased variability in care delivery. These anticipated benefits are supported by literature on CDS and health IT’s impact on patient outcomes (Kuperman et al., 2000; Bates et al., 1999; Degani & Ward, 2002). The sepsis pathway will be designed to minimize alert fatigue through tiered alerting, offense/defense thresholds, and human-centered design principles (Harrison et al., 2017).

Technologies required and rationale: The project will rely on an integrated EHR with CDS capabilities, a data integration layer (for real-time data from vitals, labs, microbiology, and medications), and a secure messaging/notification mechanism. Evidence-based sepsis criteria and predictive analytic models will be embedded to generate alerts with actionable recommendations. The system will include order-set templates, automated documentation hooks, and dashboards for real-time monitoring of compliance and outcomes. Data governance, privacy, and role-based access controls will be essential to protect patient information and ensure appropriate use. The literature supports the use of CDS within HIT environments to improve timely interventions and patient outcomes (Kuperman et al., 2000; Bates et al., 1999; Weiner et al., 2013).

Project team and nurse informaticist role: The project team will include a nurse informaticist as the chair of the clinical governance group, responsible for bridging clinical realities and IT capabilities. Roles will include: nurse informaticist (project lead, clinical liaison, and workflow designer); physician clinical lead (emergency department/intensive care unit physician champion); IT lead (EHR implementation, data architecture, security); data analyst (real-time data monitoring, model validation, and outcome measurement); pharmacy representative (antibiotic stewardship and formulary alignment); infection prevention lead (risk assessment and surveillance); quality improvement specialist (process improvement and measurement); and frontline nursing champions from participating units. This composition emphasizes multidisciplinary collaboration and aligns with nursing informatics standards that stress the nurse informaticist’s central role in coordinating care, technology, and workflow (ANA, 2015).

Implementation plan and evaluation: The project will unfold in phases. Phase 1 – discovery and design: document current workflows, identify data sources, and draft CDS rules; Phase 2 – development and testing: build alerts and order sets in a sandbox environment, conduct usability testing with nurses and physicians; Phase 3 – pilot: implement in one unit with close monitoring of process and outcome measures; Phase 4 – scale and sustain: hospital-wide deployment, ongoing training, and governance. Evaluation will focus on process metrics (time to antibiotic administration, adherence to sepsis bundle), outcome metrics (sepsis mortality, ICU transfer rates, length of stay), and safety metrics (adverse events related to CDS). A mixed-methods evaluation, combining quantitative data with qualitative feedback from end users, will be used to refine the system. The approach aligns with best-practice recommendations for HIT implementation and patient safety (IOM, 2001; IOM, 2011; ANA, 2015).

Anticipated challenges and mitigation: Potential barriers include alert fatigue, data quality gaps, and resistance to change. Mitigation strategies include staged alerting with thresholds, ongoing training, workflow analyses, and continuous feedback loops from frontline staff. Ensuring data quality and governance will be prioritized to maintain trust in the CDS outputs (Kuperman et al., 2000; Harrison et al., 2017). The nurse informaticist will lead continuous improvement efforts to align technology with nursing practice and patient needs (ANA, 2015).

Conclusion: A nurse informaticist–led, real-time sepsis detection and CDS integrated into the EHR represents a feasible, high-impact project that can improve patient outcomes and care efficiency. Grounded in established informatics standards and clinical decision-support research, the project emphasizes collaboration among nurses, physicians, IT professionals, and leadership to deliver safer, more effective care. Ongoing evaluation and governance will ensure sustainability and continual refinement of the system to meet evolving clinical needs (IOM, 2001; IOM, 2011; ANA, 2015).

References

  • Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • Institute of Medicine. (2011). The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • American Nurses Association. (2015). Nursing Informatics: Scope and Standards of Practice (2nd ed.). Silver Spring, MD: American Nurses Association.
  • Saba, F., & McCormick, K. (2015). Essentials of Nursing Informatics (6th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health.
  • Kuperman, G. J., et al. (2000). Evaluating the impact of computer-based decision support: A method for assessing effectiveness. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7(4), 291-296.
  • Bates, D. W., et al. (1999). The impact of computerized physician order entry on patient outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 6(4), 313-324.
  • Degani, E., & Ward, C. (2002). Human factors in clinical decision support. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 20(4), 170-178.
  • Weiner, S. J., et al. (2013). The value of health information exchange in improving patient safety. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(6), 1150-1157.
  • Harrison, M., et al. (2017). User-centered design in health IT: Methods and outcomes. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 60, 7-14.
  • Flynn, E., et al. (2014). Impact of clinical decision support on sepsis management: A systematic review. Critical Care Medicine, 42(6), 1324-1333.

Related Assignments