Week 3 DISCUSSION<\/p>\n
Discussion: Applying Performance Improvement Tools<\/p>\n
Read the following scenario:<\/p>\n
Imagine that, for about a year, your nursing unit has been involved in an intensive campaign to improve patient satisfaction scores with pain management. You are getting good data from your patients, as the length of stay on this inpatient geriatric medical nursing unit is only about 6 days. Your hospital does 100% survey to inpatients, and the response rate is about 25%, which is higher than it has been. This notwithstanding, the percent of \u201cpatient very satisfied\u201d (top box), with a score of 5, has been in the low 70s. The national benchmark for medical surgical units like yours is about 85% very satisfied. Of all the units in your hospital, your unit is the lowest scoring on this HCAPHS survey. But as your unit is the only geriatric medical nursing unit in the hospital, you\u2019d always thought it was the nature of the patient population.<\/p>\n
You have been the day shift representative to the QI team, and the scores on your unit are posted monthly. Here are the numerous strategies that have been tried on your unit and the timeframes.<\/p>\n
Document: Strategies and Interventions (PDF)<\/p>\n
For this Discussion, examine the strategies and interventions tried in your unit and consider the following questions: a) Were the strategies effective in creating a sustainable change on your nursing unit, and b) To what extent can your nurse manager and CNO count on your unit exceeding the national benchmark in the next quarter, the next year? That is, does this run chart have some predictive ability? Does the run chart support the nursing unit\u2019s decision to celebrate? To what extent can the leadership be confident that the trend will continue?<\/p>\n
Based on the scenario, explain what was done successfully and where improvement was needed in the quality improvement process. Identify the quality improvement tools and explain how they contributed to the outcome.<\/p>\n
Support your response\u00a0with references from the Resources and professional nursing literature. Your posts need to be written at the capstone level.<\/p>\n
Notes Initial Post:\u00a0This should be a 3-paragraph (at least 350 words) response. Be sure to use\u00a0evidence\u00a0from the readings and include\u00a0in-text citations. Utilize\u00a0essay-level\u00a0writing practice and skills, including the use of\u00a0transitional material\u00a0and\u00a0organizational frames. Avoid quotes;\u00a0paraphrase\u00a0to incorporate evidence into your own writing. A\u00a0reference list\u00a0is required. Use the most\u00a0current evidence\u00a0(usually \u2264 5 years old).<\/p>\n
Grading Rubric<\/p>\n
Grid View<\/p>\n
List View<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Excellent<\/p>\n
Proficient<\/p>\n
Basic<\/p>\n
Needs Improvement<\/p>\n
Required Content
Explained what was done successfully and where improvement was needed in the quality improvement process in the scenario.<\/p>\n
9\u00a0(18%)\u00a0– 10\u00a0(20%)<\/p>\n
Initial post is exceptional containing well developed and insightful analysis that brings connections to nursing practice into the discussion.<\/p>\n
8\u00a0(16%)\u00a0– 8\u00a0(16%)<\/p>\n
Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion.<\/p>\n
7\u00a0(14%)\u00a0– 7\u00a0(14%)<\/p>\n
Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion.<\/p>\n
0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 6\u00a0(12%)<\/p>\n
Initial post lacks analysis and\/or that brings little or no insight into the discussion.<\/p>\n
Required Content
Identified quality improvement tools and explained how they contributed to the outcome.<\/p>\n
14\u00a0(28%)\u00a0– 15\u00a0(30%)<\/p>\n
Initial post is exceptional containing well developed and insightful analysis that brings connections to nursing practice into the discussion.<\/p>\n
12\u00a0(24%)\u00a0– 13\u00a0(26%)<\/p>\n
Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion.<\/p>\n
11\u00a0(22%)\u00a0– 11\u00a0(22%)<\/p>\n
Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion.<\/p>\n
0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 10\u00a0(20%)<\/p>\n
Initial post lacks analysis and\/or that brings little or no insight into the discussion.<\/p>\n
Response Posts
Entered the discussion thread on 3 separate days. Wrote at least two posts to two separate peers.<\/p>\n
Responses are appropriate to the topic, substantive, and promoted discussion by one or more of the following:
\u2022 contributing insight to move the discussion forward.
\u2022 offering substantial and\/or different points of view and asks questions to add to discussion
\u2022 including extra references or websites for peers to consider
\u2022 relating discussion to different areas of practice and applying concepts to practice<\/p>\n
**Additional points may be deducted for late posting per the University late policy.<\/p>\n
9\u00a0(18%)\u00a0– 10\u00a0(20%)<\/p>\n
Response posts add substantial ideas and perspectives that invite further analysis and discussion. Participated 3 or more days in the classroom and responded to more than 2 classmates.<\/p>\n
8\u00a0(16%)\u00a0– 8\u00a0(16%)<\/p>\n
Response posts are proficient and provide adequate analysis and discussion. Participated 3 days in the classroom and responds to at least two classmates.<\/p>\n
7\u00a0(14%)\u00a0– 7\u00a0(14%)<\/p>\n
Response posts are limited and provide minimal analysis and discussion. Participated less than 3 days in the classroom and\/or responds to less than two classmates.<\/p>\n
0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 6\u00a0(12%)<\/p>\n
Response posts are inadequate and provide no analysis of discussion and\/ or there is no participation in the classroom.<\/p>\n
Professional Writing: Clarity, Flow, and Organization<\/p>\n
4.5\u00a0(9%)\u00a0– 5\u00a0(10%)<\/p>\n
Content is free from spelling, punctuation, and grammar\/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates very well-formed sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is completely clear, logical, and well-organized.<\/p>\n
4\u00a0(8%)\u00a0– 4\u00a0(8%)<\/p>\n
Content contains minor spelling, punctuation, and\/or grammar\/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates appropriate sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is mostly clear, logical, and well-organized.<\/p>\n
3.5\u00a0(7%)\u00a0– 3.5\u00a0(7%)<\/p>\n
Content contains moderate spelling, punctuation, and\/or grammar\/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates adequate sentence and paragraph structure and may require some editing. Content presented is adequately clear, logical, and\/or organized, but could benefit from additional editing\/revision.<\/p>\n
0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 3\u00a0(6%)<\/p>\n
Content contains significant spelling, punctuation, and\/or grammar\/syntax errors. Writing does not demonstrate adequate sentence and paragraph structure and requires additional editing\/proofreading. Key sections of presented content lack clarity, logical flow, and\/or organization.<\/p>\n
Professional Writing: Context, Audience, Purpose, and Tone<\/p>\n
4.5\u00a0(9%)\u00a0– 5\u00a0(10%)<\/p>\n
Content clearly demonstrates awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is highly professional, scholarly, and free from bias, and style is appropriate for the professional setting\/workplace context.<\/p>\n
4\u00a0(8%)\u00a0– 4\u00a0(8%)<\/p>\n
Content demonstrates satisfactory awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is adequately professional, scholarly, and\/or free from bias, and style is consistent with the professional setting\/workplace context.<\/p>\n
3.5\u00a0(7%)\u00a0– 3.5\u00a0(7%)<\/p>\n
Content demonstrates basic awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is somewhat professional, scholarly, and\/or free from bias, and style is mostly consistent with the professional setting\/workplace context.<\/p>\n
0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 3\u00a0(6%)<\/p>\n
Content minimally or does not demonstrate awareness of context, audience, and\/or purpose. Writing is not reflective of professional\/scholarly tone and\/or is not free of bias. Style is inconsistent with the professional setting\/workplace context and reflects the need for additional editing.<\/p>\n
Professional Writing: Originality, Source Credibility, and Attribution of Ideas<\/p>\n
4.5\u00a0(9%)\u00a0– 5\u00a0(10%)<\/p>\n
Content reflects original thought and writing and proper paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates full adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.<\/p>\n
4\u00a0(8%)\u00a0– 4\u00a0(8%)<\/p>\n
Content adequately reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates adequate adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.<\/p>\n
3.5\u00a0(7%)\u00a0– 3.5\u00a0(7%)<\/p>\n
Content somewhat reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing somewhat demonstrates adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.<\/p>\n
0\u00a0(0%)\u00a0– 3\u00a0(6%)<\/p>\n
Content does not adequately reflect original writing and\/or paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates inconsistent adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and reference.<\/p>\n
Total Points: 50<\/p>\n
Name:\u00a0NURS_4220_Week3_Discussion_Rubric<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Week 3 DISCUSSION Discussion: Applying Performance Improvement Tools Read the following scenario: Imagine that, for about a year, your nursing unit has been involved in an intensive campaign to improve patient satisfaction scores with pain management. You are getting good data from your patients, as the length of stay on this inpatient geriatric medical nursing […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[10],"class_list":["post-100615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-research-paper-writing","tag-writing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100615","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=100615"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100615\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100615"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100615"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/papersspot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100615"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}