Strategy Submission
Suicide Sentinel Event Analysis: A Website Evaluation Activity
Author:
Anna Reber-Frantz
MS, RN, AHN-BC, CNE
Title:
DNP Student
Coauthors:
Institution:
Western University of Health Sciences
Email:
Competency Categories:
Informatics, Safety
Learner Level(s):
Pre-Licensure ADN/Diploma
Learner Setting(s):
Clinical Setting
Strategy Type:
Online or Web-based Modules
Learning Objectives:
- Explain why information and technology area essential for safe patient care (QSEN Informatics: knowledge).
- Use high quality electronic sources of healthcare information such as the Joint Commission online website regarding in-patient suicides and national safety initiatives for suicide prevention in health care settings (QSEN: Informatics: skills).
- Value technologies that support clinical decision-making, error prevention, and care coordination (QSEN Informatics: attitudes).
- Compare and contrast similarities and differences between two quality assessment guides (QSEN Informatics: skills i.e. apply technology and information management tools to support safe processes of care).
- Evaluate at least four online website sources of information about suicide and suicide prevention (QSEN Informatics: skill i.e. use high quality electronic sources of healthcare information).
Strategy Overview:
Part One:
1) The student will access the Joint Commission web-site and find sentinel event information and national initiatives regarding suicide and suicide prevention amongst patients in healthcare organizations. View the following sites:
b. Suicide Event Alert: Issue 7 Inpatient Suicide, Recommendations for Prevention
2) After reviewing the Joint Commission web-sites, the student will then read one of two articles listed below that relates to the subject of online internet searches and summarize the findings of one of the two articles in several paragraphs containing 300 words or less.
a. Dutta-Bergman, M. (2003). Trusted online sources of health information: Differences in demographics, health beliefs, and health-information orientation. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550562/
b. Bernstam, E., Shelton, D., Walji, M., & Meric-Bernstam, F. (2004, October). Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: What can our patients actually use? International Journal of Medical Informatics, 1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.001
Student will access this article by logging in with their personal log-in to school library database.
Assessment/Evaluation: Student written work will be evaluated based on the criteria presented on the Research Article & Quality Assessment Site Summary Rubric provided on page six of this application packet. The rubric will allow the faculty member to assign either 1, 3, or 5 points for each written activity depending on the quality of work submitted.
3) Upon completion of the summary of one of the two research articles listed above, the student will then peruse the Dartmouth Biomedical Libraries web-site for Finding and Evaluating High-Quality Information found at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/biomed/guides/find-info.html?mswitch- redir=classic
4) Finally, the student will compare and contrast the following two Quality Assessment site guides and comment on similarities and differences in several paragraphs containing 300 words or less.
a. A Report on the Evaluation of Criteria Sets for Assessing Health Web Sites found at http://www.hii.org/eca.pdf and Suicide Sentinel Event Analysis: A Website Evaluation Activity
b. Assessing the Quality of Internet Health Information at the AHRQ web-site found at http://www.ahrq.gov/data/infoqual.htm
Assessment/Evaluation: Student written work will be evaluated based on the criteria presented on the Research Article & Quality Assessment Site Summary Rubric provided on page six of this application packet. The rubric will allow the faculty member to assign either 1, 3, or 5 points for each written activity depending on the quality of the work submitted.
Part Two:
1) The student will evaluate at least four online website sources for information about suicide and suicide prevention in healthcare organizations and record findings for each of the four sites on the Suicide Information & Prevention Website Evaluation Criteria Form(s) provided on page seven of this application packet.
Submitted Materials:
Additional Materials:
Evaluation Description:
Assessment/Evaluation: Student written work will be evaluated based on the criteria presented on the Suicide Information & Prevention Website Evaluation Rubric provided on page eight of this application packet. The rubric will allow the faculty member to assign either 1,3, or 5 points to each criteria form submitted and then, all four point values will be added together and divided by four to equal a point value for this particular portion of the activity.
Total potential points for the entire learning activity will be equal to 15 points overall.
Suicide Sentinel Event Analysis: A Website Evaluation Activity
Research Article & Quality Assessment Site Summary Rubric
Instructions: The research article summary will be assigned a point value of either 1, 3 or 5 points based on the top two criteria while the quality assessment site summary will be assigned a point value of either 1, 3 or 5 points based on the bottom two criteria.
|
Performance → |
Accomplished |
Developing |
Beginning |
||||
|
↓ Criteria for Article |
(5 points) |
(3 points) |
(1 points) |
||||
|
Completeness of summary: Use of language. |
Summary written in proper paragraph format with complete sentences, correct spelling, punctuation, & grammar. APA format integrated appropriately and article referenced according to APA 6th edition guidelines at the end of the summary. |
Summary generally included complete sentences, correct spelling, punctuation, & grammar and some attempt was made to utilize correct APA 6th edition and formatting in the write-up. |
Summary included errors in sentence structure, use of spelling, punctuation, & grammar and showed little understanding of how to utilize APA 6th edition formatting in the write-up. |
||||
|
Completeness of summary: Use of ideas. |
Summary addressed key ideas presented in the article. Examples and facts from the article are presented to support key ideas. |
Summary addressed ideas presented in the article, but not clearly or succinctly. Some examples and facts from the article are presented to support key ideas. |
Summary attempted to address ideas presented in the article, but lacked pertinent examples and facts to support main ideas. |
||||
|
↓ Criteria for Quality Assessment |
(5 points) |
(3 points) |
(1 points) |
||||
|
Completeness of summary: Use of language. |
|
|
|
||||
|
Completeness of summary: Use of ideas. |
Summary compares and contrasts items clearly. Points to specific examples to illustrate the comparison and includes only information relevant to the comparison. |
|
Summary compares and contrasts items but the supporting information is incomplete and includes information that is not as relevant to the comparison. |
Rubric developed by ARF with modifications made from the following rubric sources:
Summary Grading Rubric. A document retrieved from Article Review Grading Rubric and Comparison and Contrast Rubric. Retrieved from http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/lesson_images/lesson275/compcon_rubric.pdf
Suicide Sentinel Event Analysis: A Website Evaluation Activity
Suicide Information & Prevention Website Criteria Form
Instructions: Make four copies of this form and evaluate each web-site using this criteria.
|
Credibility: Includes the source, currency, relevance/utility, and editorial review process for the information. |
|
|
|
Contents/Caveats: Must be accurate and complete and an appropriate disclaimer provided. Clarification of whether site function is to market products and services or is a primary information content provider. |
|
|
|
Discloser: Includes informing the user of the purpose of the site, as well as any profiling or collection of information associated with using the site. |
|
|
|
Links: Evaluated according to selection, architecture, content, and back linkages. |
|
|
|
Design: Encompasses accessibility, logical organization (navigability), and internal search capability. |
|
|
|
Interactivity: Includes feedback mechanisms and means for exchange of information among users. |
|
|
Information source: AHRQ. (June, 1999). Assessing the Quality of Internet Health Information. Retrieved from http://www.ahrq.gov/data/infoqual.htm
Suicide Sentinel Event Analysis: A Website Evaluation Activity
Suicide Information & Prevention Website Evaluation Rubric
Instructions: Each criteria form will be given a point value, then, all four point values will be added together and divided by four to equal a point value for this portion of the activity.
|
Performance → |
Accomplished |
Developing |
Beginning |
|
↓ Web-site Evaluation Criteria |
(5 points) |
(3 points) |
(1 points) |
|
Credibility |
Write-ups accurately and completely considers source, relevance/utility and editorial review process. |
Write-ups demonstrate some ability to consider source, relevance/utility and editorial review process. |
Write-ups miss pertinent data regarding source, relevance/ utility and editorial review process. |
|
Content/Caveats |
Write-ups demonstrate accuracy and completeness, and includes pertinent information about disclaimer and caveats. |
Write-ups reveal some accuracy and completeness and attempt to address information about disclaimer and caveats. |
Write-ups reveal limitations in accuracy and completeness and fails to address information about disclaimer or caveats. |
|
Disclosure |
Write-ups clearly articulate the purpose of the site as well as any profiling or collection of information associated with use of the site. |
Write-ups capture some essences of the purpose of the site and may or may not address whether or not information was collected by users. |
Write-ups reveal limitations with capturing the main purpose of the site and do not address whether information about users was collected. |
|
Links |
Write-ups clearly address the web-sites ability to connect with other |