Internet and social media use in nursing practice
The same clause closes all three questions: how concerns about quality and reliability affect use. Treating it once, properly, is better than repeating it three times.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
Three questions, each ending on reliability
Notice that each of the three questions ends the same way, asking how concerns about the quality and reliability of information affect the thing being discussed. That repetition is a deliberate signal rather than an accident of drafting — reliability is the discussion's actual subject, and the three questions are simply three settings in which the same problem plays out differently. Handle it substantively once, early, and refer back to it rather than writing the same paragraph three times in slightly different words. The first question asks you to share an actual site and discuss its pros and cons, so name a real one and evaluate it against explicit criteria rather than impressions: authorship and credentials, disclosure of funding, currency, whether claims are referenced, and whether commercial and clinical content are distinguishable. Applying a published framework rather than an improvised one makes the evaluation checkable.
The second question asks you to compare two national nursing organisations' web presence and say how they could advance a nursing service, which means an actual comparison rather than two descriptions. Look at what each is trying to do — advocacy, continuing education, certification, standards, member community — and judge them against that intent rather than against each other's aesthetics. The third question is the most demanding: how do patient concerns about interoperability and data sharing affect the frequency and reliability of complete EHR integration. Patients who fear their data will be shared beyond the encounter withhold information, opt out of exchange, or seek care in more than one system, and every one of those produces an incomplete record — which is a reliability problem created by the privacy concern rather than solved by ignoring it, and any answer that treats patient caution as simple misunderstanding has the causation backwards.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Evaluate a health information site against explicit credibility criteria.
- 02Compare two organisations' web presence against their stated purposes.
- 03Explain how privacy concerns produce incomplete clinical records.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes. Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages. Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor. The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A named site with a criteria-based evaluation.
- 02A genuine comparison of two national nursing organisations.
- 03An account of how patient concerns affect EHR completeness.
- 04APA-formatted citations.
Individual use, organisations, then the EHR
Make reliability the spine
State that the three questions share one underlying concern and set out credibility criteria.
Evaluate a named site
Apply the criteria to a specific site and give its genuine pros and cons.
Compare two organisations
Judge each national organisation's web presence against its own stated purpose.
Advancing a nursing service
Say concretely how one organisation's approach could be used to advance a service.
Privacy concerns and record completeness
Trace withholding, opting out and care fragmentation to incomplete records.
Comparing two organisations properly
Recommended databases
- American Nurses Association
- AAOHN and other specialty organisations
- Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT
- PubMed Central
- Health On the Net credibility criteria
Search sequence
- 1.Adopt an established credibility framework rather than inventing evaluation criteria.
- 2.Read each organisation's own statement of purpose before comparing their sites.
- 3.Search for evidence on patient information withholding due to privacy concerns, which supports the third answer.
- 4.Check ONC material on patient access and exchange for the interoperability half.
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.
- 01
Interoperability
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology · 2024
The standards and policy governing exchange, which is what patient consent decisions interact with.
- 02
Hospitals' adoption of intra-system information exchange is negatively associated with inter-system information exchange
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2018
Evidence that exchange between organisations lags exchange within them, which bears directly on record completeness.
- 03
About CAHPS
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality · 2024
A model of how information quality is assessed systematically rather than impressionistically.
- 04
The Impact of Education on Nursing Practice
American Association of Colleges of Nursing · 2026
An example of a national nursing organisation using its web presence for advocacy and education, usable in the comparison.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Repeating the reliability point three times instead of treating it once properly.
- Describing two organisations rather than comparing them.
- Evaluating a site on appearance rather than on credibility criteria.
- Treating patient privacy concerns as irrational rather than as a cause of incomplete data.
Submission checklist
- Is a real site named and evaluated against stated criteria?
- Does the organisational section compare rather than describe?
- Have you explained the mechanism linking privacy concern to record incompleteness?
- Is the reliability theme handled once with depth?
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.