February 2015 – Page 16 – CI Keys

QSEN Teamwork & Collaboration Guidelines

February 9, 2015/in /by Jordin Anastasia

Member strengths, limitations, and values:

Jordin:

Strengths- Writing, PowerPoint, mind maps, posters, teamwork, communication
Limitations- Being on time & scheduling that works for everyone
Values- Hard work & teamwork

Hannah:

Strength: getting work finished on time, organized, open to compromise, take charge when needed, communication
Limitations: speaking during a presentation
Values: teamwork, kind, honest, truthful.

Miguel:

Strengths: Communication, listening, works well with others, use of technology (ppt), creative
Limitations: Finding time, presenting (to an extent), writing (to an extent)
Values: Team player, honesty, creativity, hard worker

Team member roles and accountabilities:

Group accountabilities will be equally dispersed among the group members. Each member will be expected to participate and complete assigned tasks on time to avoid further disciplinary action. All ideas, thoughts, and/or suggestions will be heard and majority ruling will take place on all decision making.

Communication style:

Various methods of communication will be utilized throughout the course of this project, including: google docs, text messaging, emails, designated meeting times, and phone calling.

Leadership style:

A demographic leadership style will be utilized in order to incorporate all members within the decision making process.

Strategies for successful team functioning:

Listening to others ideas
Effective communication
Shared workload
Shared responsibilities
Staying on topic
Fulfill tasks and assignments
Respect
Flexibility

Day 2: The Presentation of Self

February 8, 2015/in /by Sean Kelly

I am an introvert. I prefer to spend time by myself, with my family, or with a few close friends. When I was younger my introversion was interpreted by others as shyness. I internalized that narrative. I avoided speaking to groups, and discussing the picayune details of my life. Those things made me uncomfortable.

Much of what I do as a college professor I do by myself, or with a close colleague. Being a professor allows me to indulge my introversion. Except when it does not. Much of what I do involves interaction with others. Teaching classes, presenting papers, contributing in meetings, describing my research–they are all parts of the job. They all require me to be someone other than my introverted self.

On a daily basis–in front of a class, in meeting, at a conference–I find myself in uncomfortable situations, situations that challenge my tendency toward introversion. If your first exposure to me was in a classroom you would swear that I was an extrovert, a comedian.

I am a performer. I am an actor.

According to sociologist Erving Goffman, we are all actors. In presenting ourselves to others we adopt verbal and nonverbal means of communication that shape how others understand us. Goffman calls this the “presentation of self.” He uses the metaphor of theater to understand how the actor and the audience interact to create understanding.

Presentation of self depends on the individual and the audience. My presentation in a classroom involves a combination of humor, informality, curiosity, and professional rigor. In a meeting, a mixture of authority, humor, and purposeful ignorance. The common thread in my presentation of self is humor, which I consider indispensable for a variety of purposes, especially relieving class or group tensions. I am reasonably funny. It works for me. Especially to the degree that my authority is already established.

This week the Interdisciplinary Learning Community focused on the presentation of self. Lindsey O’Connor (Sociology) discussed nonverbal behaviors and how they influence others’ impressions of us. Her main focus was Deborah Gruenfeld’s distinction between high and low status behaviors.

Behaviors associated with “playing high” include being open, and relaxed; keeping one’s head still, speaking in complete sentences, and holding eye contact. “Playing low” includes behaviors like keeping one’s body close and tight, minimizing one’s footprint, shrink, incomplete sentences, fleeting and jerky movements, glancing and looking away, smiling, trying to make others feel better. All of these behaviors indicate that you know and understand your position.

Effectively presenting oneself involves a combination of playing high and playing low. Playing high promotes confidence in one’s self and thus in others. Playing low improves others’ sense that one is approachable. To help students better understand these two sets of behaviors they were asked to do two 30-second “elevator talks” –one adopting behaviors associated with playing high, and one demonstrating behaviors of playing low.

There is no perfect recipe for presenting oneself. At least I do not think there is. One has to understand one’s self and one’s audience. What is comfortable and may work for me may not work for another person. And my presentation of self does not work for every audience. Some will find my humor or informality (e.g., my willingness to employ profanity, wearing jeans and t-shirts to work) off-putting, or unprofessional. Yet, simultaneously, my willingness to use humor and occasional profanity may paradoxically communicate a higher sense of status.

Each of us has to find a level of comfort with our presentational style. We need to adapt to changes in our audience. We need to become shrewd students of our own behavior, how our behavior affects others, and how others’ use their behaviors to influence our impressions of them.

GREAT Minds in STEM

February 8, 2015/in /by Janeth Morancervantes

GREAT Minds in STEM
Deadline: April 30, 2015

High School, undergraduate, and graduate students

link: GREAT Minds in STEM

UnCoRe: Undergraduate Computer Research (UNCoRe) in Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace at Oakland University

February 8, 2015/in /by Janeth Morancervantes

UnCoRe – Undergraduate Computer Research in Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace
Deadline: 03/18/2015

The Computer Science and Engineering Department at Oakland University invites students to apply to its eleventh summer of an NSF-funded Research Experience for Undergraduate students. The students selected to participate will be immersed in a research environment under the mentoring of CSE faculty.
This program is a full-time comprehensive educational experience targeted to women and minorities in particular. It should be understood by the students that this position is not merely a summer job, but rather an educational experience where the students are treated as junior colleagues.
Requirements:
Open to all non-graduating undergraduate students (US citizens and permanent residents) with an interest in Computer Science and Engineering.
Students cannot be working or taking classes at the same time.
Students will be selected based on statement of interest, letters of recommendation and a phone interview.

UnCoRe
Computing Alliance of Hispanic-Serving Institutions (CAHSI)

TechnoVascular Health

February 8, 2015/in /by Jason Amurao

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to be the number one cause of morbidity and mortality around the world (World Health Organization [WHO], 2015). It has been reported that over 17.5 million people died as result of CVD in 2012, which accounts to almost 1/3 (31%) of all deaths within that year (WHO, 2015). As a result, more emphasis has been placed on preventive strategies and health promotion. Thus screening for CVD risk has been recognized as a prime method for preventing morbidity and mortality (Surka et al., 2014). With the advancement of technology and its increasing use in health care, benefits have shown promise in preventing CVD (Surka et al., 2014). The article by Surka et al. (2014) discusses the use of a mobile CVD risk application tool and its benefits as a screening tool versus the paper-based screening assessment.

The basis of this study involved the creation of a CVD risk assessment application based on a paper-based screening tool (Surka et al., 2014). The paper-based screening tool assessed for six risk factors, which included age, sex, diabetes, smoking, systolic blood pressure, and body mass index (Surka et al., 2014). Twenty-four community health workers were chosen and trained to use the mobile application using mobile devices (smartphones) and 537 people were screened (Surka et al., 2014). Results indicated that training time for the mobile application-screening tool (3 hours) was about four times less than the paper-based screening training (12.3 hours) (Surka et al., 2014). The mean screening time for the mobile application (21 minutes) was about 1/3 less than the paper-based screening assessment (35.4 minutes) (Surka et al., 2014). Common themes that rose from this study indicated that the mobile application was easier to use, took less time to screen individuals, and resulted in fewer errors (Surka et al., 2014). Nonetheless, these results indicated that the mobile application was favored over the paper-based screening tool due to its ease of use, time efficiency, and avoidance of errors.

The growth of technology and increasing use in health care shows promise for future health considerations. I am excited for what the future holds and am willing to learn more about how technology can be used as an adjunct for patient care. Have a great weekend everyone!

References

Surka, S., Edirippulige, S., Steyn, K., Gaziano, T., Puoane, T., & Levitt, N. (2014). Evaluating the use of mobile phone technology to enhance cardiovascular disease screening by community health workers. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83(9), 648-654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.06.008

World Health Organization. (2015). Cardiovascular diseases. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs317/en/

Heart in a box

February 8, 2015/in /by Jaime Hannans

“Heart in a box” is a portable heart perfusion system. It is still being tested through clinical trials in the US but is already being used in parts of Europe and Australia (Suchetka, 2011). Instead of putting the heart to be transplanted on ice and in a cooler for transport, the heart is put in the chamber pictured above. This system pumps warm oxygenated blood while still beating and still allows for tests to be done on the heart before it is put into the recipient. Typically, the donor heart can remain on ice in a cooler for about four hours before complications can occur but with heart in a box, the heart can survive for up to twelve hours (Suchetka, 2011).

I think this is an amazing invention and may change how heart transplantation is performed in the future in America. I also took a look at the company who creates this technology, Transmedics, and it also looks like they are creating similar transplant technology for lungs and livers as well (“TransMedics,” 2015). This type of technology could possibly decrease post operative complications because the heart was monitored throughout the entire transplant process (Suchetka, 2011). Meaning, less complications for critical care nurses when taking care of post-operative heart transplant patients. I think some questions arise from this type of technology as well. Do patients who have this type of transplant live longer? Is there really a chance of less complication in the long run? I am excited to see what the results of the clinical trials being done at the eight hospitals in the US have in store for the future.

References

Suchetka, D. (2011, August 19). ‘heart in a box’ invention allows transplant hearts to remain outside the body for 12 hours. Retrieved from http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2012/08/heart_in_a_box_invention_to_ex.html

Transmedics. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.transmedics.com/wt/page/index

ICU DELIRIUM

February 7, 2015/in /by Marcella Vandriessche

January 29, 2015 at 10:53 pm

Health Science, Volume 6, Issue 4 (October-December 2012) article entitled Delirium: a distressing and disturbing clinical event in a Intensive Care Unit was both informative and compelling.

Delirium, from the Latin word was defined as to “be out of your furrow.” Current day definition is, an “agitated and confused person.” Prior to reading the article, the idea of a patient being agitated and confused while in the ICU appeared normal and acceptable. The patient is in a new surrounding, possibly medically sedated and quite literally connected to machines, monitors, etc. Being a patient and losing complete control of themselves would understandingly provoke agitation and confusion.

The article described delirium not only as agitation and confusion, but as an “acute brain dysfunction.” This was quite an eye opening description. In addition, it discussed the detrimental effects and links between delirium and a high morbidity and mortality rates. Research showed that 30,000 – 40,000 ICU patients in the United States suffer from delirium and with every day spent in this state, it increased the risk of death and negative cognitive function by 10%. It was also noted that patient who suffer with this were twice as likely to die within 6 months than their non-delirious counterparts. With this current information, the article compels nurses to be diligent in understanding the causes and being able to assess their patients for delirium.

Several causes of delirium are: mechanical ventilation, use of benzodiazepines, opiates and other psychoactive drugs, immobilization, unfamiliar surroundings, excessive noises, sensory monotony and absence of dirunal light variation. As nurses, there are assessments and interventions that should be implemented to reduce as many factors as possible.

Assessment screenings must be completed to assess delirium. These include eight features: alerted level of consciousness, inattention, disorientation, hallucinations, psychomotor, agitation/retardation, inappropriate mood/speech, sleep/wake cycle disturbance and symptom fluctuation. In addition preventative strategies are also necessary. These include: frequent orientation to person, place and time, providing patient with their hearing aids, and glasses during wakeful periods, completing personal care activities during daytime hours and minimizing nighttime interruptions.

Understanding the costly repercussions, to both the health of the patient and to their future, it is imperative that all medical professionals view delirium as a “medical emergency” and do everything to minimize the negative effects to the patients that are entrusting themselves to them. Marcella Van Driessche

References:
“ABCDEFs of Prevention and Safety.” ICU Delirium and Cognitive Impairment Study Group. Web. 29 Jan. 2015. .
Maniou, M. (2012). Delirium: A distressing and disturbing clinical event in a Intensive Care Unit. Health Science Journal, 6(4), 587-597.

Cardiovascular Health & Technology

February 7, 2015/in /by Jordin Anastasia

During my search on cardiovascular health and the new technology that is being put forth in order to decrease the dramatic occurrence of heart disease, I came across an extremely unique study currently being conducted by the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). The principal investigators of the study include Dr. Jeffrey E.Olgin, Professor of Medicine and Chief of Cardiology at UCSF; Dr. Mark J. Pletcher, Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Medicine at UCSF; and Dr. Gregory M. Marcus, Associate Professor of Medicine and Director of Clinical Research for Cardiology at UCSF. According to the University a heart attack happens every 34 seconds here in the United States and although medical advancements in preventing poor cardiovascular health are arising, there is still tons of contributing factors about the heart that we still do not know (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014). This study known as the Health eHeart study is different from others in that it relies on what they call BIG data. In other words this study plans on gathering more data about the cardiovascular system and its association with health from more people than any previous research has ever done before. How you might ask? TECHNOLOGY!

The original recruitment for the Health eHeart study is done through the website health-eheartstudy.org, which is supported by both UCSF and the American Heart Association. The study calls for all kinds of participants, those completely healthy, those who have heart disease, and even those that have heart disease that science is unable to treat, as long as they are over the age of 18 (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014). Once members join and are participants of the study, they are then able to invite others to join the study through social media (Facebook or Twitter, etc). According to the University, “We’ve made it easy to ask friends and family to join the effort and, if you want, eventually you will be able to post information about the study and let people know how you’re helping to cure heart disease” (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014).

In order to gather relevant data from the population within the Health eHeart study multiple gadgets, smartphones and other innovations of the latest technology will be utilized. The first being electronic study visits, in which all data is collected over a secure website allowing data collection to be easier and less time consuming for the participants. Another interesting facet of data collection is the utilization of mobile apps that allow you take surveys, achieve real time measurements, track various behaviors and send in medical information (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014). Some participants will even be given sensors to wear in order to monitor the health of their hearts. These sensors will then link up to their smartphones and take blood pressures, heart rate, ECG monitoring, sleep patterns, activities, and heart arrhythmias (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014).

In addition to the goal of understanding the causes of heart disease and finding new ways of its prevention, the study also has set out to develop new and more accurate ways of predicting heart disease through measurements, genetics, behavior patterns and family and medical history (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014). Additionally, the Health eHeart study has also established the goal of creating personalized tools for patients to use when the development of heart disease is already established (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014). Listed below are seven main aspects of heart disease taken from the Health eHeart study that will be further evaluated over its course.
1. Can heart disease be predicted based on measurements, behavior patterns, and family and medical history? Can we look at everyday habits in real time to determine how they affect our cardiovascular health (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014)?
2. Can we use technology to develop ways to improve cardiovascular health and rigorously test them to determine their effects on health? Or can we use technology to help people live a more heart-health lifestyle (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014)?
3. Can we determine what causes episodes of atrial fibrillation? How do behaviors, diet, other diseases and genes interact to cause it (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014)?
4. Can we use mobile technology and sensors to keep people with heart failure out of the hospital (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014)?
5. Does being more connected with people improve heart health (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014)?
6. Can we predict when heart disease, such as heart failure, coronary disease, or hypertension, will get worse before someone needs hospitalization (and even before the patient knows something is wrong)? Credit card companies use Big Data to alert you when your card has been stolen before you even realize it’s gone; Netflix can recommend movies you’ve never heard of before. Can’t we do something similar for heart disease (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014)?
7. Are people with different kinds of genes more vulnerable to particular heart disease risks (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014)?

In conclusion to the findings on the Health eHeart study being conducted through UCSF, the success of the study ultimately depends on the participants sticking with the study for many years in order to see who out of those involved become diagnosed with heart disease and who does not. Based on these results and the data collected on the comparing individuals health care professionals can better understand what affects our hearts when compared to others. As their motto states “it only take a few minutes to make a big difference” (Olgin, Pletcher & Marcus, 2014). Visit https://www.health-eheartstudy.org/ to learn more!

Reference
Olgin, J., Pletcher, M., & Marcus, G. (2014). Join the study to end heart disease. Retrieved February 7, 2015, from https://www.health-eheartstudy.org/

Bio

February 6, 2015/in /by Amber Kramer

Amber Kramer grew up in Northern Indiana. Earned an Associates Degree in Liberal Arts, in Kaneohe, Hawaii. Finishing Bachelor of Science Degree in Chemistry from California State University Channel Islands, in Camarillo, California. Currently involved in undergraduate research determining the mercury content in fish. Will pursue a Doctoral Degree in Atmospheric Chemistry after undergraduate degree is finished in May of 2015. Desire to research ways of removing harmful chemicals which are anthropogenically being deposited into the atmosphere. Works in Chemistry prep-room as a student assistant prepping laboratory experiments, and tutoring STEM students on campus.

Hello world!

February 6, 2015/in /by Tamara Renzi

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Archive for month: February, 2015