A DNP Student’s Guide
What criteria to include in your EHR evaluation rubric, how to structure the grading scale, how to write the rationale paper, what peer-reviewed sources to use, and how to hit the 2500-word requirement without padding.
The assignment asks you to do two things that feel straightforward but trip people up in practice: build an actual rubric — a structured tool with criteria and a scoring system — and then write a 2500-word paper explaining why each criterion belongs there. The rubric is not just a table you paste in and forget. It has to be something a real executive team could hand to multiple evaluators and get consistent, comparable scores back. This guide walks you through both pieces.
What This Guide Covers
Understanding the Two-Part Assignment
Read the instructions carefully. The deliverable is not just an essay — it is a rubric tool followed by an essay. Both parts count. Students who write a strong paper but build a vague, unscored rubric lose marks in the quality of information and support of thesis criteria. Students who build a solid rubric but write thin rationale paragraphs lose marks in analysis and development.
The scenario places you on a healthcare administration executive team as a DNP leader. That context shapes how you write. You are not a student explaining what an EHR is to a professor. You are a clinician-executive making an evidence-based case for why these specific evaluation criteria matter for your organization. That shift in voice — from student to practitioner — is what separates a paper that scores “Meets” from one that scores “Exceeds.”
The rubric goes first, before the introduction. Think of it as an appendix moved to the front — the tool itself, then the explanation of it. Your introduction starts after the rubric, and that is where your 2500-word count begins.
What an EHR Evaluation Rubric Actually Is
A rubric, in this context, is a scoring matrix. Rows are criteria. Columns are performance levels. Each cell describes what a given EHR system looks like when it meets — or fails to meet — that criterion at a specific level. The whole point is standardization: five different evaluators should be able to use your rubric independently and arrive at comparable scores for the same system.
What the Rubric Must Include
- At least five clearly named criteria
- A defined grading scale (e.g., Does Not Meet / Approaches / Meets / Exceeds, or a numeric score like 1–4)
- A descriptor for each cell explaining what the EHR system looks like at that level for that criterion
- Optionally: a weighting column if criteria carry different importance
- A total score calculation method at the bottom
What the Rubric Should Not Be
- A simple checklist with yes/no answers — that is not a rubric, it is a checklist
- A list of questions without scoring descriptors
- Criteria so vague that two evaluators would score the same system differently (e.g., “Is the system good?” is not a criterion)
- A copy of an existing rubric from a source without adaptation to your specific organizational context
Look at the assignment’s own rubric for structural inspiration. It uses four performance levels (Does Not Meet, Approaches, Meets, Exceeds), assigns percentage weights to each criterion, and gives each cell a descriptor. Your EHR evaluation rubric can follow the same format — adapted for EHR-specific content instead of academic writing quality.
Choosing Your Five-Plus Criteria
Five is the minimum. If your organizational context genuinely supports seven criteria, use seven. But do not add criteria just to pad the count — each one needs a full rationale section in the paper. Five strong, well-supported criteria will score higher than seven thin ones.
The criteria you choose should reflect what a healthcare organization actually cares about when selecting an EHR system. Think about what goes wrong when a system is chosen poorly: clinical staff cannot use it efficiently, data does not transfer between systems, costs spiral past budget, or a security breach exposes patient records. Good criteria anticipate those failure modes.
Strong Criteria to Consider
- Interoperability and data exchange capability
- Usability and clinical workflow integration
- Clinical decision support functionality
- Data security and HIPAA compliance
- Total cost of ownership (implementation + training + licensing)
- Vendor support, uptime guarantees, and scalability
- Regulatory certification and ONC compliance (21st Century Cures Act)
Weak Criteria That Won’t Hold Up in the Rationale
- “The system looks modern” — not measurable
- “Staff like it” — too vague without a defined measurement method
- Criteria duplicating each other under different names
- Generic IT criteria not specific to clinical environments (e.g., “has cloud storage”)
- Criteria you cannot find 2021–2026 peer-reviewed support for
Before finalizing your five criteria, check that you can find North American peer-reviewed journal articles from 2021–2026 that support each one. If you choose a criterion and then cannot find a qualifying source for the rationale, you either need to find a better source or swap the criterion for one with stronger literature support. Source availability is a real constraint on this assignment — work with it, not against it.
Designing the Grading Scale
Your rubric needs a grading system. There are two common options for this type of assignment.
Does Not Meet / Approaches / Meets / Exceeds
This mirrors the assignment’s own rubric format. Each level gets a descriptor specific to the criterion. For example, under “Interoperability,” “Does Not Meet” might read: “System cannot exchange data with external providers or labs. No HL7 FHIR compliance documented.” “Exceeds” might read: “System demonstrates full bidirectional HL7 FHIR R4 compliance, documented integration with regional health information exchanges, and real-time data sharing with all major lab and imaging providers.”
When to use this: When your criteria are complex enough that a number alone won’t communicate meaningful distinctions to evaluators. Descriptive levels force you to define what “good” actually looks like — which strengthens both the rubric and your rationale.1–4 or 1–5 Point Scale with Anchors
Assign numeric scores (1–4) with brief anchor descriptors at each point. Criteria can be weighted so higher-priority factors (like security compliance) contribute more to the total score than lower-priority ones (like vendor aesthetics). A weighted numeric rubric makes it easy to calculate a total score across systems being compared — useful for the “executive team evaluation” scenario the assignment sets up.
When to use this: When the rubric will be used to compare multiple EHR systems side by side. A numeric score makes comparison faster and less subjective. Include a total score row and specify how the team should interpret final scores (e.g., 70–100 = Recommended, 50–69 = Conditional, below 50 = Not Recommended).Either format works. What matters is that the grading system is defined clearly enough that a colleague who was not in the room when you designed it can pick it up and use it correctly. That is the standard a real executive rubric has to meet.
The Five Criteria — Broken Down
Here is how to think about the five most defensible criteria for a DNP-level EHR evaluation rubric, and what the rationale for each needs to cover.
Interoperability and Health Information Exchange
This is the ability of the EHR to exchange data with other systems — other hospitals, labs, pharmacies, and regional health information exchanges. The 21st Century Cures Act (2016) and ONC’s Interoperability and Information Blocking Rule (2020) created federal mandates around this. Systems that fail interoperability requirements create data silos that harm care continuity and expose organizations to regulatory penalties. Your rationale should explain why interoperability is a patient safety issue, not just a technical one — and cite peer-reviewed literature that connects poor data exchange to adverse outcomes.
Source direction: Search for recent literature on HL7 FHIR implementation, information blocking rules, or health information exchange outcomes in North American journals from 2021–2026.Usability and Clinical Workflow Integration
An EHR system that clinicians cannot use efficiently creates problems beyond frustration. Studies consistently link poor EHR usability to increased documentation time, clinician burnout, and — critically — medication and documentation errors. The rationale here ties directly to McGonigle and Mastrian’s discussion of human factors in informatics systems (Chapters 2 and 14 of your required textbook). Your evaluation criterion should include how the system handles clinical workflow mapping, the number of clicks required for common tasks, and whether nurses and physicians were involved in the system’s interface design.
Source direction: Nursing burnout linked to EHR usability is a well-researched topic in North American journals. Look for studies on EHR-related clinician burnout, alert fatigue, and workflow inefficiency published 2021–2026.Clinical Decision Support (CDS) Capability
Clinical decision support tools — drug interaction alerts, evidence-based order sets, sepsis detection flags, diagnostic reminders — are one of the primary ways EHR systems add direct value to patient care. But not all CDS is equal. A system with poorly calibrated alerts creates alert fatigue, which causes clinicians to override warnings indiscriminately, undermining safety. Your rubric criterion should evaluate the quality, customizability, and evidence base of CDS tools, not just whether they exist. The rationale should connect CDS capability to measurable patient outcomes.
Source direction: The connection between clinical decision support and patient outcomes — particularly around sepsis protocols and medication safety — has strong recent literature. Check journals like the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA) and Applied Clinical Informatics.Data Security and HIPAA Compliance
This is non-negotiable and belongs in every EHR evaluation rubric at any organizational level. Healthcare data breaches cost U.S. organizations an average of over $10 million per incident — the highest of any industry, according to IBM Security’s Cost of a Data Breach reports. Your rubric should evaluate encryption standards, access controls, audit trail functionality, and breach notification procedures. The rationale should explain not just the legal obligation (HIPAA) but the organizational and patient trust dimensions of security failures.
Source direction: Healthcare cybersecurity and HIPAA compliance have substantial North American literature from 2021–2026. You can also cite the HHS Office for Civil Rights breach portal for quantitative context, though HHS publications are government sources, not peer-reviewed journal articles for your citation count.Total Cost of Ownership
The sticker price of an EHR license is rarely the real cost. Implementation, staff training, downtime during transition, ongoing maintenance, customization, and integration with existing systems all add up. An executive team evaluation rubric that ignores total cost of ownership (TCO) is not a useful decision-making tool. Your criterion should evaluate upfront costs, projected training costs, expected productivity loss during transition, and long-term licensing fees. The rationale should frame this as a financial stewardship issue — a core competency of DNP leadership.
Source direction: EHR implementation cost studies and return-on-investment analyses appear in healthcare management and health informatics journals. Look for studies examining EHR implementation failures or budget overruns in North American health systems, 2021–2026.Structuring the 2500-Word Paper
The assignment specifies four required sections. Each needs a heading so your professor can navigate the paper and verify you have addressed each element. Here is how to distribute the 2500 words across those sections.
| Section | Heading | Approximate Word Count | What It Must Cover |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening | Introduction | 250–350 words | Purpose of the tool, the organizational context (executive EHR selection team), what the rubric is designed to do, and a clear thesis statement about why a structured evaluation tool matters for this decision. |
| Main Body | Rationale for Each Criterion | 1,800–2,000 words | One heading per criterion (e.g., “Rationale for Interoperability Criterion”). Each section explains what the criterion measures, why it matters in a clinical setting, what the evidence says, and how it connects to patient outcomes or organizational risk. This is where all four peer-reviewed citations appear. |
| Closing | Conclusion | 200–300 words | A synthesis of what the tool achieves — not a summary of the criteria, but a statement about what it means for the organization to have a structured, evidence-based evaluation process for EHR selection. No new information here. |
The introduction and conclusion are structural requirements, but the rubric criteria rationale sections are where the marks are. Twenty-five percent of the grade goes to quality of information and evidence, and another twenty percent to support of thesis and analysis. Both of those criteria are evaluated primarily on how well your rationale sections connect peer-reviewed evidence to your specific criteria choices. Thin rationale paragraphs — one source, three sentences — will not score in the “Exceeds” range. Aim for 350–400 words per criterion with at least one cited source per section.
Writing the Rationale Sections
Each rationale section does the same job: explain what this criterion measures, why it is the right thing to measure for an EHR selection decision, and what the evidence says about its importance. Three things. In that order.
Define What the Criterion Actually Measures
Start each rationale section by clarifying what the criterion evaluates — specifically. “Usability” is vague. “Clinical workflow integration, measured by average task completion time and clinician-reported alert fatigue rates” is specific. This precision matters because it shows the professor (and would-show a real executive team) that you understand the difference between a general concept and a measurable evaluation standard.
Connect the Criterion to Clinical or Organizational Stakes
Why does this matter? What goes wrong when an EHR system scores poorly on this criterion? Poor interoperability leads to care fragmentation. Poor security leads to breaches, regulatory penalties, and patient harm. Poor usability contributes to clinician burnout and documentation errors. Name the specific consequence, cite a source that documents it, and make the connection explicit. Do not make the reader infer why the criterion is important — state it.
Bring in the Evidence
Use your peer-reviewed source to substantiate the claim you just made. This is where the APA in-text citation appears. The source should either document the prevalence or severity of the problem your criterion addresses, or provide evidence-based guidance on what good performance looks like. Adeniyi et al. (2024), listed in your learning materials, is a solid starting point for the impact of EHR systems on patient care — but you need four qualifying sources in total, and they all need to be North American peer-reviewed journals from 2021–2026.
What Sources Are Actually Acceptable
The source restrictions on this assignment are strict. Read them carefully before you search.
North American Peer-Reviewed Journals, 2021–2026
Published in a U.S. or Canadian journal, peer-reviewed, within the last five years. Examples include JAMIA (Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association), Applied Clinical Informatics, the American Journal of Nursing, the Journal of Nursing Administration, and Nursing Informatics.
McGonigle & Mastrian Textbook
The required textbook (5th ed., 2021, Chapters 2 and 14) is an acceptable source and relevant to the nursing informatics framing. It is not a peer-reviewed journal article, so it supplements but does not replace your four journal article requirement.
Government Sources (AHRQ, HealthIT.gov, HHS)
Federal agencies like AHRQ and HealthIT.gov publish relevant data and guidelines. These can be cited for context and statistics, but they are not peer-reviewed journal articles. They do not count toward your four-source minimum.
European Journals
The assignment explicitly excludes European journals. Do not cite sources from BMJ, The Lancet, BMC Health Services Research, or any journal published outside North America. If a source appears in a European journal, find a North American source making the same point.
Sources Older Than 2021
The healthcare technology landscape changes fast. The assignment requires 2021–2026 sources specifically because EHR research from 2017 or 2018 may not reflect current regulatory requirements, current system capabilities, or post-COVID workflow realities. Do not use older sources even if they are frequently cited in the field.
Industry Reports and Vendor White Papers
Reports from organizations like KLAS Research, Black Book Rankings, or vendor-published white papers are not peer-reviewed and should not be used as primary sources. They may appear in peer-reviewed articles as cited data — in that case, cite the journal article that references them, not the report itself.
PubMed Central, CINAHL, and your institution’s library database are the most reliable places to search for North American peer-reviewed nursing informatics and healthcare informatics articles. Search terms like “electronic health record usability 2022,” “EHR interoperability patient outcomes,” “clinical decision support nurse burnout,” and “healthcare data security HIPAA 2023” will surface relevant literature. Filter by date (2021–2026) and check that the publishing journal is North American before downloading.
APA Requirements for This Assignment
APA format is worth 10% of your grade — the same as your introduction and conclusion combined. Get the mechanics right.
APA 7th edition title page for a student paper includes: paper title, your name, institution name (Aspen University), course number and name (DNP865 — Healthcare Technologies and Informatics), instructor name, and submission date. These are centered on the page. The title does not go in quotation marks or bold on the title page itself — it is bold on the first page of the paper text.
Every claim you make that comes from a source needs an in-text citation at the point where the claim appears — not just at the end of the paragraph. Format: (Author, Year) for a paraphrase, or (Author, Year, p. X) if you are quoting directly. For the rationale sections, paraphrase is preferred over direct quotation — you are demonstrating that you understand and can apply the material, not just reproduce it.
Separate page at the end of the paper titled “References” (centered, bold, no quotation marks). Each entry is double-spaced with a hanging indent. Order alphabetically by first author’s last name. Every source cited in the paper must appear here; every source listed here must appear in the paper. Do not list sources you read but did not cite — APA reference pages are not bibliographies.
Common Mistakes That Cost Marks
Building a Checklist, Not a Rubric
A list of yes/no questions is not a rubric. A rubric has performance levels with descriptors. If your tool does not define what “Exceeds” or “Does Not Meet” looks like for each criterion, it is not a rubric — it is a checklist. The assignment specifically asks for a rubric with a grading system.
What to Do Instead
Define at least three performance levels (Does Not Meet / Meets / Exceeds is the minimum). Write a brief descriptor for each criterion at each level. The descriptor should be specific enough that an evaluator can score a real EHR system without asking for clarification.
Thin Rationale Paragraphs
One sentence of context, one citation, and a conclusion is not a rationale. The quality of information criterion (25% weight) requires “exceptionally researched, extremely detailed, and accurate” content to score at the highest level. Three-sentence rationale sections will not get there.
What to Do Instead
Aim for 350–400 words per criterion rationale section. Explain the problem the criterion addresses, cite the evidence, connect it to organizational or patient outcomes, and explain how the rubric scoring scale captures performance differences on this dimension.
Using European or Pre-2021 Sources
The assignment bans European journals and requires sources from 2021–2026. Using a 2019 Lancet article or any European journal source is a direct violation of the assignment instructions, which affects the APA format criterion and the quality of information criterion simultaneously.
What to Do Instead
Run your source list before you start writing. Check each source: publication date (2021–2026?), journal country of origin (North American?), peer-reviewed status (not a report, white paper, or trade publication?). Fix disqualifying sources before you build rationale sections around them.
Ignoring the DNP Leadership Framing
Writing as a student describing what EHR criteria are, rather than as a DNP leader explaining why these criteria matter for your organization’s decision, misses the assignment’s scenario framing. The rubric graders note that “Exceeds” requires originality, specific expertise-level voice, and analytical depth.
What to Do Instead
Write from inside the scenario. You are the DNP on the executive team. Use language like “the organization’s evaluation process,” “our clinical staff,” and “the financial risk to the health system.” Make the organizational stakes concrete — not abstract.
Frequently Asked Questions
Need Help With Your DNP Healthcare Informatics Assignment?
From EHR evaluation rubric design to rationale paper structure and APA formatting — our specialist team covers nursing informatics and healthcare administration assignments at the DNP level.
Healthcare Administration Help Get StartedThe Short Version
You are building two things: a scoring rubric with at least five criteria and a grading system, and a 2500-word paper that justifies every criterion with peer-reviewed evidence. The rubric goes first. The paper starts with an introduction, covers each criterion in its own headed section, and ends with a conclusion.
Your five strongest criteria are interoperability, usability, clinical decision support, security and HIPAA compliance, and total cost of ownership. Each one has substantial North American peer-reviewed literature from 2021–2026 backing it up. Build your source list before you finalize your criteria — not after.
The rationale sections are the assignment. Thin paragraphs with one citation and three sentences won’t score at the top of the rubric. Write each criterion section like you are making a case to a room of executives who need to understand why this specific dimension matters for their organization’s EHR decision.
For help with healthcare administration assignments at any level, or for support with nursing informatics papers and essays, see what services are available. If you need your draft reviewed before submission, the proofreading and editing service includes an APA format check as part of every review. For citation formatting guidance, see the citation and referencing guide.