Discussion: Workplace Environment Assessment
Discussion: Workplace Environment Assessment
Assignment: Workplace Environment Assessment
Clearly, diagnosis is a critical aspect of healthcare. However, the ultimate purpose of a diagnosis is the development and application of a series of treatments or protocols. Isolated recognition of a health issue does little to resolve it.
In this module’s Discussion, you applied the Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory to diagnose potential problems with the civility of your organization. In this Assignment, you will continue to analyze the results and apply published research to the development of a proposed treatment for any issues uncovered by the assessment.
Click here to ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT:Discussion: Workplace Environment Assessment
To Prepare:
· Examine the Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory, found on page 20 of Clark (2015). Can locate at this link: https://www.americannursetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ant11-CE-Civility-1023.pdf
· Review your Work Environment Assessment Template.
——Copy of my Template attached under files
· Reflect on your Discussion post regarding your evaluation of workplace civility and the feedback received from colleagues.
—–Main Discussion posting is attached as files
· Select and review one of the following articles found in the Resources:
o Clark, Olender, Cardoni, and Kenski (2011)
o Clark (2018)
o Clark (2015)- Will use this article, same as above, here is link: : https://www.americannursetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ant11-CE-Civility-1023.pdf
o Griffin and Clark (2014)
The Assignment (3-6 pages total):
Part 1: Work Environment Assessment (1-2 pages)
· Review the Work Environment Assessment Template you completed for this Module’s Discussion.
· Describe the results of the Work Environment Assessment you completed on your workplace.
· Identify two things that surprised you about the results and one idea you believed prior to conducting the Assessment that was confirmed.
· Explain what the results of the Assessment suggest about the health and civility of your workplace.
Part 2: Reviewing the Literature (1-2 pages)
· Briefly describe the theory or concept presented in the article you selected.
· Explain how the theory or concept presented in the article relates to the results of your Work Environment Assessment.
· Explain how your organization could apply the theory highlighted in your selected article to improve organizational health and/or create stronger work teams. Be specific and provide examples.
Part 3: Evidence-Based Strategies to Create High-Performance Interprofessional Teams (1–2 pages)
· Recommend at least two strategies, supported in the literature, that can be implemented to address any shortcomings revealed in your Work Environment Assessment.
· Recommend at least two strategies that can be implemented to bolster successful practices revealed in your Work Environment Assessment.
Module 4: Communication and Relationship Building (Weeks 7-9)
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Diagnosis: Communication Breakdown [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Assess work environments for workplace civility
- Analyze strategies to address workplace incivility
- Analyze evidence-based theories for promoting organizational health
- Recommend strategies for improving workplace environments
Due By | Assignment |
---|---|
Week 7, Days 1–2 |
Read the Learning Resources. Compose your initial Discussion post. |
Week 7, Day 3 | Post your initial Discussion post. Begin to compose your Assignment. |
Week 7, Days 4-5 | Review peer Discussion posts. Compose your peer Discussion responses. Continue to compose your Assignment. |
Week 7, Day 6 | Post two peer Discussion responses. |
Week 8, Days 1-7 | Continue to compose your Assignment. |
Week 9, Day 1-6 | Continue to compose your Assignment. |
Week 9, Days 7 | Deadline to submit your Assignment. |
Learning Resources
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.
Required Readings
Marshall, E., & Broome, M. (2017). Transformational leadership in nursing: From expert clinician to influential leader (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
- Chapter 5, “Collaborative Leadership Contexts: Networks, Communication, Decision Making, and Motivation” (pp. 121–144)
- Chapter 9, “Creating and Shaping the Organizational Environment and Culture to Support Practice Excellence” (pp. 247–278)
- Chapter 10, “Building Cohesive and Effective Teams” (pp. 279–298)
Select at least ONE of the following:
Clark, C. M., Olender, L., Cardoni, C., & Kenski, D. (2011). Fostering civility in nursing education and practice: Nurse leader perspectives. Journal of Nursing Administration, 41(7/8), 324–330. doi:10.1097/NNA.0b013e31822509c4
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Clark, C. M. (2018). Combining cognitive rehearsal, simulation, and evidence-based scripting to address incivility. Nurse Educator. doi:10.1097/NNE.0000000000000563
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Clark, C. M. (2015). Conversations to inspire and promote a more civil workplace. American Nurse Today, 10(11), 18–23. Retrieved from https://www.americannursetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ant11-CE-Civility-1023.pdf
Griffin, M., & Clark, C. M. (2014). Revisiting cognitive rehearsal as an intervention against incivility and lateral violence in nursing: 10 years later. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 45(12), 535–542. doi:10.3928/00220124-20141122-02
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Document: Work Environment Assessment Template (Word document)
Required Media
TEDx. (2017, April). Jody Hoffer Gittell: The power of a simple idea [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7nL5RC5kdE
Laureate Education (Producer). (2009a). Working with Groups and Teams [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Name: NURS_6053_Module04_Week07_Discussion_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or 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.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
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 sources.
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 Post: Timeliness
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are 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.
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are 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.
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6053_Module04_Week07_Discussion_Rubric