NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Indicators

NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Indicators
Florence Nightingale introduced research to the field of nursing, and with this introduction, a focus on improving patient care has continued to be at the forefront of nursing practice. Improving patient care lends itself to the study of quality care and patient safety, and nurse-sensitive quality indicators highlight the elements of healthcare in which patients are directly impacted by the care provided by nurses.
Photo Credit: Coloures-Pic / Adobe
What are nurse-sensitive indicators? What elements of a patient’s care are directly impacted by the role and delivery of care of nurses? How might these nurse-sensitive indicators change healthcare delivery and the nursing profession for a future DNP-prepared nurse?
For this Discussion, you will explore your understanding of nurse-sensitive indicators of quality by reflecting on those quality indicators that may pertain most to your practice setting. You will conduct a literature search for articles that address these quality indicators and reflect on the connections between the quality indicators and quality improvement theories and philosophies.
To Prepare:
Review the Learning Resources on. Focus on those quality indicators that most pertain to your practice setting.
Consider the influence of early quality improvement theories and philosophies on the development of those quality indicators.
NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Indicators
Using the Walden Library, locate at least two scholarly research articles to focus on, for this Discussion, that discuss how quality indicators may influence your practice setting.
Select one definition of quality published by any peer-reviewed source that particularly resonates with your thinking about quality.
Identify and select at least two nurse-sensitive indicators of quality related to patient care. Note: Do not select nurse-sensitive indicators related to staffing.
By Day 3 of Week 2
Post a brief description of the that you selected. Analyze the influence of early quality improvement theories and philosophies on the development of the quality indicators you selected. Be specific. Then, cite the two (2) nursing research articles you selected, and . Be specific and provide examples.
By Day 6 of Week 2
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by expanding on your colleague’s post and explaining how the quality indicators selected by your colleague may influence your practice setting.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 2 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 of Week 2 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 2
To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 2 Discussion
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_8302_Week2_Discussion_Rubric
Excellent
90–100
Good
80–89
Fair
70–79
Poor
: 0–69
Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s).
Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three current credible sources.
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s).
Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible references.
Points Range: 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).
One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Cited with fewer than two credible references.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s).
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible references.
Main Posting:
Writing
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely.
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
First Response:
Writing Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
First Response:
Timely and full participation Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Second Response:
Writing Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response:
Timely and full participation Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100