Question #1 What did you like or dislike about taking an online course?
Answer- I usually enjoy taking online courses. I like the ability to be self-paced, do a little here and there and then you are done. What I did not like about the course... I was very difficult to understand some of the requirements needed for assignments. Then when I asked one of the instructors for help it was not given. Instead I was basically told they could not make it clearer and I would just need to work it out on my own. I felt this was very rude and impersonal. Why tell students you are there to help and then don't. This type of learning experience is very impersonal to begin with. Then to add an I don't care atmosphere. This is not the best combination to encourage learning. It is really sad to say this happened during the first part of the course. From that point on this class just seemed to be a thorn in my side.
Question #2 What topic did you learn the most about and what was your favorite?
Answer- I really enjoyed bloging. I had no clue how before I started this class. Kinda funny for the first questions I was upset from the lack of support given to students in this class, but there was no need to for the blog section and it turned out to be my favorite one. Interesting, what a difference clear instructions make.
Question #3 If you were the instructor, and this being the first course what would you do the same or different?
Answer- I think I have already stated from the above questions- that student interaction and feed back is very important. I think I would change and have a group project on direct interaction between students. Some of the information given was rather dry and hard to digest. They could have been presented in a different format other than memorize and test. This course could be done it encourage hands on interaction to encourage learning. I also don't think the wiki edit was needed. That was a mess. It is very difficult to edit another persons work, let alone 4 or 5 people doing the same thing.
I have tried to find a real value from this course and have not. When I read the class description I got a completely different picture in my mind. I thought I would be taught ways to enhance the use of the computer. I guess I was but not in the way I wanted. I could have definitely used a entire module on the use of EndNote.
I guess that is enough ranting, I will just chock this class up to one of the requirements needed to graduate.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Module #5's Question
What, if any relationship do you see between the information available on this webpage and regulatory, accreditation, and reimbursement issues and healthcare information system use and design? Post your ethical considerations as a message in your blog.
I think there is a strong relationship between the information available on the U.S. Department of Health and Human services web page AHRQ and regulatory, accreditation, and reimbursement. The first correlation is in the first section under clinical information there are guide lines for clinical practice. Having guidelines for clinical practice is extremely important when it comes to best practice. Without establishing a standard of care providers are unable compare their practice standards with others. Or they lack the opportunity to improve the care being provided. There are several regulatory commissions that have input on quality of care within this web site.
After looking at several sub-headings on this web site it appears that several sections have information provided by a regulatory commission. It probably seems within the scope of regulatory commissions to provide information to providers to ensure the standard of care is met.
Ethically is feels a little harsh to be told how to practice according to an established standard. I understand why regulatory commissions are involved with creating a standard of scare related to clinical practice. Reimbursement will always be an issue for providers. In our society health care is lacking in rudimentary areas. Providers feel they should be paid more. The government and insurance agencies feel that providers are expecting too much money for their services. This will be a never ending battle. The days of fee for service medicine are over. Now wed are moving to payment for outcome, this type of payment is a bit insane. Not every patient is going to have the same outcome. People are individuals and should be treated as such. With establishing a standard of care we are saying in part, every patient should be treated the same. From this foundation then we are saying that every patient should have the same outcome. Furthermore we (the insurance companies are not going to pay if the outcome is not. This limits the ability of the provider in such a way that it makes it very difficult to provide care. I see this leading to unnecessary tests to ensure the outcome to secure payment.
I can see both sides of the coin on this one. As a wife, and mother of people needing extensive medical treatment I do not want to pay for a poor outcome due to lack of knowledge on behalf of the provider. Nor do I want to pay for unnecessary testing ordered by the provider to ensure a good outcome. As a provider I can’t guarantee that every outcome will be the same.
I think there is a strong relationship between the information available on the U.S. Department of Health and Human services web page AHRQ and regulatory, accreditation, and reimbursement. The first correlation is in the first section under clinical information there are guide lines for clinical practice. Having guidelines for clinical practice is extremely important when it comes to best practice. Without establishing a standard of care providers are unable compare their practice standards with others. Or they lack the opportunity to improve the care being provided. There are several regulatory commissions that have input on quality of care within this web site.
After looking at several sub-headings on this web site it appears that several sections have information provided by a regulatory commission. It probably seems within the scope of regulatory commissions to provide information to providers to ensure the standard of care is met.
Ethically is feels a little harsh to be told how to practice according to an established standard. I understand why regulatory commissions are involved with creating a standard of scare related to clinical practice. Reimbursement will always be an issue for providers. In our society health care is lacking in rudimentary areas. Providers feel they should be paid more. The government and insurance agencies feel that providers are expecting too much money for their services. This will be a never ending battle. The days of fee for service medicine are over. Now wed are moving to payment for outcome, this type of payment is a bit insane. Not every patient is going to have the same outcome. People are individuals and should be treated as such. With establishing a standard of care we are saying in part, every patient should be treated the same. From this foundation then we are saying that every patient should have the same outcome. Furthermore we (the insurance companies are not going to pay if the outcome is not. This limits the ability of the provider in such a way that it makes it very difficult to provide care. I see this leading to unnecessary tests to ensure the outcome to secure payment.
I can see both sides of the coin on this one. As a wife, and mother of people needing extensive medical treatment I do not want to pay for a poor outcome due to lack of knowledge on behalf of the provider. Nor do I want to pay for unnecessary testing ordered by the provider to ensure a good outcome. As a provider I can’t guarantee that every outcome will be the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)