Every order is original, expert-done, and screened for AI — full report on request.See how it works

Assignment questions
Health Information ManagementDiscussion postHealth informatics

DNP 805: the EHR's usefulness and limitations

The prompt asks for limitations by name, and the honest ones are not that it is slow. Documentation burden, alert fatigue and new categories of error are all documented, and naming them is what makes the post credible.

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 15, 2026

01

Strengths and limitations, both evidenced

Answer both halves and evidence both, because a post that praises the electronic health record and adds a sentence about the learning curve has not engaged the question. On usefulness and safety, be specific about mechanisms rather than listing benefits. Legibility eliminated a whole class of transcription error that paper produced. Availability means the record is in more than one place at once, which changes what a covering clinician at three in the morning can know. Decision support can act at the moment of ordering. Structured data makes population-level measurement possible at all, which is what quality improvement runs on. And the audit trail means events can be reconstructed afterwards, which is how systemic causes get found rather than blame assigned to an individual. Each of those is a mechanism rather than a benefit, and stating them that way is what keeps the first half of the post from reading as promotional.

The limitations are where a doctoral-level post distinguishes itself, and the documented ones are more interesting than inconvenience. Documentation burden is real and measured: clinicians spend substantial time in the record rather than with patients, and it is an established contributor to burnout. Alert fatigue means high override rates, so a safety mechanism becomes noise. The record has introduced new error categories rather than only removing old ones — copy-forward propagating outdated information, wrong-patient ordering when several charts are open, and dropdown selection errors that paper's ambiguity never produced. Interoperability failures mean the record often does not follow the patient across organisations. Note-bloat produced by templates makes the clinically important sentence harder to find than it was on one handwritten page. And documentation optimised for billing distorts what gets recorded. Close by saying what would improve it, since a limitation named without a direction reads as a complaint: usability-led design, alert specificity, and measuring documentation time as an outcome.

Likely learning objectives

Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.

  • 01
    Explain the EHR's safety contribution through mechanisms rather than benefits.
  • 02
    Identify documented limitations including burden, alert fatigue and new error types.
  • 03
    Recognise that the record introduced error categories as well as removing them.
  • 04
    Propose a direction of improvement rather than only a criticism.
Assignment instructionsQuoted verbatim

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

Discuss the usefulness of the electronic health record (EHR) and its impact on patient safety and quality outcomes. Describe strengths and limitations that might apply to its usage.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question

Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. DNP 805 Topic 2 Discussion 1 Discuss the usefulness of the electronic health record (EHR) and its impact on patient safety and quality outcomes I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course! Exit  Grid View  List View Excellent Point range: 90–100 Good Point range: 80–89 Fair Point range: 70–79 Poor Point range: 0–69 Introduction to the case (1 page) Briefly explain and summarize the case for this Assignment. Be sure to include the specific patient factors that may impact your decision making when prescribing medication for this patient. 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) The response accurately, clearly, and fully summarizes in detail the case for the Assignment. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the specific patient factors that impact decision making when prescribing medication for this patient. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) The response accurately summarizes the case for the Assignment. The response accurately explains the specific patient factors that impact decision making with prescribing medication for this patient. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the case for the Assignment. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the specific patient factors that impact decision making with prescribing medication for this patient. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the case for the Assignment, or is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the specific patient factors that impact decision making with prescribing medication for this patient. Decision #1 (1–2 pages) • Which decision did you select? • Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient- specific resources, including the primary literature. • Why did you not select the 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the decision selected. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the decision selected. 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The response accurately explains the decision selected. The response explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision selected. The response accurately explains 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision selected. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the decision 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the decision selected. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing. other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient- specific resources, including the primary literature. • What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature). • Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients. Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses provided. why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response. The response accurately explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response. The response accurately explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients. Examples provided support the decisions and responses provided. selected. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients. Examples provided may support the decisions and responses provided. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the response, or is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients, or is missing. Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses provided, or is missing. Decision #2 (1–2 pages) • Which decision did you select? • Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient- specific resources, including the primary literature. • Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient- specific resources, including the primary literature. • What were you hoping to 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the decision selected. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the decision selected. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response. 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The response accurately explains the decision selected. The response explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision selected. The response accurately explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response. The response accurately explains the outcome the student was 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision selected. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response inaccurately and vaguely explains in detail the decision selected. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing. achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature). • Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients. Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses provided. hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response. The response accurately explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients. Examples provided support the decisions and responses provided. vaguely support the response. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients. Examples provided may support the decisions and responses provided. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the response, or is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients, or is missing. Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses provided, or is missing. Decision #3 (1–2 pages) • Which decision did you select? • Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient- specific resources, including the primary literature. • Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient- specific resources, including the primary literature. • What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature). • Explain how ethical 18 (18%) – 20 (20%) The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the decision selected. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the decision selected. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully support the response. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that fully 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) The response accurately explains the decision selected. The response explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the decision selected. The response accurately explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response. The response accurately explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that support the response. The response accurately explains how ethical considerations 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the decision selected. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the decision selected. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant 0 (0%) – 13 (13%) The response inaccurately and vaguely explains in detail the decision selected. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the decision was selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains why the other two responses were not selected, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the decision selected, or is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the outcome the student was hoping to achieve with the selected decision, with specific clinically relevant resources that do not support the considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples. support the response. The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients. Examples provided fully support the decisions and responses provided. impact the treatment plan and communication with patients. Examples provided support the decisions and responses provided. resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the response. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients. Examples provided may support the decisions and responses provided. response, or is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how ethical considerations impact the treatment plan and communication with patients, or is missing. Examples provided do not support the decisions and responses provided, or is missing. Conclusion (1 page) • Summarize your recommendations on the treatment options you selected for this patient. Be sure to justify your recommendations and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature. 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the recommendations on the treatment options selected for this patient. The response accurately and clearly explains a justification for the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant resources that fully support the recommendations provided. 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) The response accurately summarizes the recommendations on the treatment options selected for this patient. The response accurately explains a justification for the recommendation provided, including clinically relevant resources that support the recommendations provided. 11 (11%) – 11 (11%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the recommendations on the treatment options selected for this patient. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains a justification for the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant resources that inaccurately or vaguely support the recommendations provided. 0 (0%) – 10 (10%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the recommendations on the treatment options selected for this patient, or is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains a justification for the recommendations provided, including clinically relevant resources that do not support the recommendations provided, or is missing. Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated, yet they are brief and not descriptive. 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion were provided. Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in- text citations, and reference list. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. Total Points: 100

02

Turn the brief into deliverables

  1. 01
    Mechanisms by which the record improves safety and quality.
  2. 02
    Evidenced limitations, not only inconveniences.
  3. 03
    At least one new error category the record introduced.
  4. 04
    A direction for improvement.
  5. 05
    APA-formatted citations.
03

Usefulness, safety impact, then the limitations

01

Safety mechanisms

Explain legibility, availability, decision support and the audit trail.

02

Quality and measurement

Show that structured data is what makes population measurement possible.

03

Documentation burden

Report the measured time cost and its connection to burnout.

04

New categories of error

Cover copy-forward, wrong-patient ordering, selection error and note bloat.

05

A direction for improvement

Propose usability-led design, alert specificity and measuring documentation time.

04

Evidence on both sides

Recommended databases

  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
  • PubMed Central
  • Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Search sequence

  1. 1.
    Search for measured documentation time studies, which is the strongest limitation evidence.
  2. 2.
    Look up copy-forward and wrong-patient ordering specifically, since those are the distinctive new errors.
  3. 3.
    Find evidence on decision support effectiveness for the benefits half.
  4. 4.
    Read on usability as a safety property, which supplies the improvement direction.
05

Reference shortlist

These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.

Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.

  1. 01

    The association between perceived electronic health record usability and professional burnout among US nurses

    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(8), 1632-1641 · 2021

    Measured evidence on usability and burnout, which is the best-supported limitation.

  2. 02

    Medication-related clinical decision support in computerized provider order entry systems

    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2007

    Decision support inside the record, which is the strongest safety mechanism available.

  3. 03

    Interoperability

    Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology · 2024

    The exchange problem that limits what the record can do across organisations.

  4. 04

    Sentinel Event Data

    The Joint Commission · 2024

    Serious event data, which is how the record's safety claims are actually tested.

06

Review before submission

Common mistakes

  • Listing benefits without the mechanism behind each.
  • Treating limitations as a learning curve or user resistance.
  • Missing copy-forward and wrong-patient ordering, which are the distinctive new errors.
  • Ignoring documentation burden, which is the best-evidenced limitation.
  • Naming limitations with no direction of improvement.

Submission checklist

  • Does each benefit carry a mechanism?
  • Are the limitations documented rather than anecdotal?
  • Have you named at least one error category the record created?
  • Is documentation burden addressed?
  • Do you close with a direction rather than a complaint?

Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by

Aaron Bishop

MA, Education

assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines

Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by

Dr. Nathan Cole

PhD, Rhetoric & Composition

Argumentation and thesis development

Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.

Want feedback on your plan before you draft?

Get help interpreting the brief, checking your evidence strategy, and strengthening your outline while keeping the work your own.

Get assignment guidance
Start your order