Suicide Sentinel Event Analysis: A Website Evaluation Activity

Submitter Information

Author: Anna Reber-Frantz, MS, RN, AHN-BC, CNE
Title: DNP Student
Institution: Western University of Health Sciences
Email: areber-frantz@wuhs.edu

Competency Category(s)
Informatics, Safety

Learner Level(s)
Pre-Licensure ADN/Diploma

Learner Setting(s)

Strategy Type
Case Studies, Independent Study, 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: 

a.  Suicide Risk Reduction

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/EvaluationStudent 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/EvaluationStudent 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. 

Summary included no errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content.

Summary included 2-4 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content.

Summary included 4 or more errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the
content.

 

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 general 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 linkages and
articulates issues of selection, architecture, content and back linkages.

Write-ups address basic information regarding web-site linkages and address some of the evaluation
issues regarding selection, architecture, content and back linkages.      

Write-ups lack specificity  regarding web-site linkages and fails to address the
evaluation of link sites regarding selection, architecture, content and back linkages.   

Design

Write-ups clearly reveal a detailed overview of issues regarding access, logical organization, and internal search capability.

Write-ups reveal some attention to issues of access, logical organization, and internal search capability. 

Write-ups lack detail and specificity about issues of access, logical organization, and internal search capability. 

Interactivity

Write-ups clearly articulate feedback mechanisms available to consumers for comment or questions regarding information provided at the web-site. 

Write-ups reveal some information about feedback mechanisms available to consumers for comment or questions regarding information provided at the web-site. 

Write-ups reveal limitations when addressing feedback mechanisms available to consumers for comment or questions regarding information provided at the web-site.    

Rubric developed by ARF with guidance from AHRQ.  (June, 1999).  Assessing the Quality of Internet Health Information.  Retrieved from http://www.ahrq.gov/data/infoqual.htm