NURS 4210
1
Case Study: Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom (DIKW) Analysis in a Real-World
Information System
This is group work. Your project should be no more than 4 pages excluding title page, reference,
appendix, and peer evaluation. One submission per group via Blackboard, due November 18, 2021
11:59pm CST. You should include the following information in your paper:
• Select a simple information system used in clinical setting (e.g., glucometer or physiologic monitor)
• Identify the purpose of the system and the clinicians who use it.
• Describe how data are captured and displayed, including the timeframe in what data are collected, how
and where data are stored, and how data are displayed.
• Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the process to obtain the data, including risks for error
in obtaining data. Explain potential reasons for unintended consequences and anticipate potential
work-arounds that could threaten patient safety when the system is used incorrectly.
• Describe the knowledge synthesis required to transform these data into information then
knowledge to arrive at a clinical decision. Provide a clinical example.
• Explore how wisdom- clinical experiences and expertise- guide clinicians to implement appropriate
interventions when analyzing the data and information the system generates. Explain how wisdom
influences nursing practice.
Please follow APA 7 formatting. Must cite at least three (3) peer reviewed articles (not exceed 5
years) in addition to your textbook. You are encouraged to use subtitles in your paper to make organization
of your paper clearer. If two/three students work together, please include the following sentence on your
cover page “XX, XX and XX contributed equally to the paper.”
You can make an appointment with the UHD writing center to grammatically revise your paper before
submission. https://www.uhd.edu/academics/university-college/writing-center/Pages/writing-centerindex.aspx. You can seek help from HCC librarian on APA and looking up online references.
NURS 4210
2
Grading Rubric
Criteria Below
Expectations
Needs
Improvement
Meets
Expectations
Exceeds
Expectations
Structure &
Organization
(30%)
(0-15 Points)
Unclear or
inappropriate
organization of
ideas. Lack of
structure or
continuity of
information. Few
or no transitions.
(16-29 Points)
Paper is difficult
to follow as there
is limited
continuity and
Ineffective
transitions.
(30-49 Points)
Content organized
in general, but some
ideas could be more
logically developed.
Transitions are
mostly appropriate.
(50-60 Points)
Logical sequencing
of information
presented and welldeveloped ideas.
All transitions are
effective.
Content &
Knowledge
(60%)
(68-72 Points)
All required
components are
not addressed.
Discussion
incomplete or
inaccurate.
Displays some
reasoning but
most ideas are
underdeveloped
and unjustified.
(73-84 Points)
All required
components
addressed, but
inadequately.
Displays some
synthesis of ideas
but analysis may
lack clarity. Minor
issues justifying
recommendations.
(85-99 Points)
All required
components
addressed
completely &
accurately. Analysis
is logical and
inclusive. Wellreasoned and clear
recommendations.
(100-120 Points)
All required
components
addressed clearly,
completely and
accurately; displays
synthesis of ideas, indepth analysis and
justification of
original thoughts;
recommendations are
well-reasoned, clear
and logical.
Scholarly
Writing
(10%)
(0-5 points)
No logical support
of ideas. Frequent
grammatical,
sentence structure,
spelling, and/or
APA formatting
errors. No peer
reviewed articles
cited.
(6-10 points)
Indirect
support of
ideas.
Multiple
grammatical,
sentence
structure,
spelling,
and/or APA
formatting
errors. Only 1
peer reviewed
article
(11-15 points)
Sound, valid, and
logical support of
ideas. Rare or no
grammatical,
sentence structure,
spelling or APA
formatting errors.
Less than 3 peer
reviewed articles
provided.
(16-20 points)
Clear, logical, wellsupported, and
innovative ideas. No
grammatical,
sentence structure,
spelling, or APA
formatting errors. At
least 3 peer
reviewed articles
cited.