NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative

Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative

NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative

Your organization has recently discovered there have been too frequent errors in medication distribution. After launching an investigation in the matter, and discovering the reasons for the errors, your organization is ready to launch a quality improvement initiative. What might this initiative entail? What is included, and how will it assist in eliminating these errors?

Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
The purpose of the Quality Improvement (QI) Plan is to provide a formal ongoing process by which the organization and stakeholders utilize objective measures to monitor and evaluate the quality of services—both clinical and operational—provided to the patients. The QI Plan, which often addresses general medical behavioral health and oral healthcare and services, defines and facilitates a systematic approach to identify and pursue opportunities to improve services and resolve identified problems (Health Resources and Services Administration, 2011).
For this Discussion, review the Learning Resources. Then, reflect on how adverse events impact your organization and/or nursing practice. Consider the use of quality improvement initiative in the error rate, using scholarly articles to analyze.
Reference:
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration. (2011). Developing and implementing a QI plan. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/quality/toolbox/508pdfs/developingqiplan.pdf
To Prepare:
• Review the Learning Resources for this week, and reflect on the types of quality improvement (QI) initiatives that might be most relevant to your healthcare organization or nursing practice.
• Select a QI initiative, you are most familiar with, that has received support from your senior leaders in your healthcare organization or nursing practice.
• Consider how adverse events are handled in your healthcare organization or nursing practice. Reflect on how this may impact the public—as well as the internal—perspective on healthcare quality.
• Find a scholarly article or one from the public press, published within the last 5 years, that recounts a serious error. Reflect on this error, and consider how it may relate to your healthcare organization or nursing practice.
By Day 3 of Week 6
Post a brief explanation of the QI initiative you selected, and why. Be specific. Explain how adverse events are handled in your healthcare organization or nursing practice, including an explanation of how this may impact both public and internal perspectives on healthcare quality. Then, briefly describe the error rate from the article you selected, and explain how this may relate to your healthcare organization or nursing practice. Be specific and provide examples.
By Day 6 of Week 6
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by expanding upon your colleague’s post or offering an alternative interpretation of the error rate described by your colleague.
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 6 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 of Week 6 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 6

To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 6 Discussion

Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_8302_Week6_Discussion_Rubric
• Grid View
• List View
Excellent

90–100 Good

80–89 Fair

70–79 Poor

: 0–69
Main Posting:

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative

NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative

NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative

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
Name: NURS_8302_Week6_Discussion_Rubric

 

 

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.