NURS 8210 Discussion Week 4

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

NURS 8210 Discussion Week 4

NURS 8210 Discussion Week 4

A nurse leader sought to implement greater security in the children's wing of the hospital by installing a
new alarm and monitoring system. Due to budget constraints, the CNO rejected the proposal, stating
that current security methods were sufficient. Shortly after this failed proposal, an individual did in fact
breach the children's wing security and abducted a young child. Thankfully, the child was found and
returned to her parents; and the CNO quickly found the money to install the new security system.
Not all HIT projects have such high-profile stakes. The main takeaway from this example is the
importance of getting key stakeholders and decision makers on board when planning a new HIT project.
To prepare:
 Bring to mind a HIT project implemented in your organization. Which leaders identified the
project? Which stakeholders and decision makers helped moved the project forward?

 Consider methods that were used to garner the support of stakeholders and decision makers to
move the project forward.
By Day 3 post a cohesive response that addresses the following:
 Describe an example of a HIT project implemented at your organization and analyze how that
project was identified and moved forward.
 Evaluate the impact of key decision makers on moving the HIT project forward.
Read a selection of your colleagues' postings
By Day 6 respond to at least two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:
 Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or
research.
 Share an insight from having read your colleagues' postings, synthesizing the information to
provide new perspectives.
 Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your
own research in the Walden Library.
 Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

 Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing
multiple postings.
 Expand on your colleagues' postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives
based on readings and evidence.
Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you
learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.
Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week's Learning Resources and any
additional sources.
Click on the Reply button below to post your response.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Content
Name: NURS_8210_Week4_Discussion_Rubric
 Grid View
 List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
RESPONSIVEN
ESS TO
DISCUSSION
QUESTION
Discussion post
minimum
requirements:
*The original
posting must be
completed by
Wednesday, Day
3, at 11:59pm
MST. Two
response postings
to two different
peer original
posts, on two

Points Range: 8
(26.67%) – 8
(26.67%)
Discussion
postings and
responses exceed
the requirements
of the Discussion
instructions.
They: Respond to
the question being
asked or the
prompt provided;
– Go beyond what
is required in
some meaningful
way (e.g., the post
contributes a new
dimension,

Points Range: 7
(23.33%) – 7
(23.33%)
Discussion
postings and
responses meet
the requirements
of the Discussion
instructions.
They: -Respond to
the question being
asked or the
prompt provided;
-Are substantive,
reflective, with
critical analysis
and synthesis
representative of
knowledge gained

Points Range: 6
(20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion
postings and
responses are
minimally
responsive to the
requirements of
the Discussion
instructions.
They: – do not
clearly address the
objectives of the
discussion or the
question or
prompt; and/or –
May (lack) lack in
depth, reflection,
analysis, or

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion
postings and
responses are
unresponsive to
the requirements
of the Discussion
instructions.
They: – do not
clearly address the
objectives of the
discussion or the
question or
prompt; and/or –
Lack in substance,
reflection,
analysis, or
synthesis but rely

different days,
are required by
Saturday, Day 6,
at 11:59pm MST.
Faculty member
inquiries require
responses, which
are not included
in the minimum
number of posts.
Your Discussion
Board postings
should be written
in standard
edited English
and follow APA
style for format
and grammar as
closely as possible
given the
constraints of the
online platform.
Be sure to
support the
postings with
specific citations
from this week's
Learning
Resources as well
as resources
available through
the Walden
University online
databases. Refer
to the Essential
Guide to APA
Style for Walden
Students to
ensure your in-
text citations and
reference list are
correct.

unearths
something
unanticipated); –
Are substantive,
reflective, with
critical analysis
and synthesis
representative of
knowledge gained
from the course
readings and
current credible
evidence. –
Demonstrate
significant ability
to generalize and
extend thinking
and evaluate
theories or
concepts within
the topic or
context of the
discussion. –
Demonstrate that
the student has
read, viewed, and
considered the
Learning –
Resources as well
as additional
resources and has
read, viewed, or
considered a
sampling of
colleagues'
postings; -Exceed
the minimum
requirements for
discussion posts*.

from the course
readings and
current credible
evidence.re –
Demonstrate
ability to
generalize and
extend thinking
and evaluate
theories or
concepts within
the topic or
context of the
discussion. –
Demonstrate that
the student has
read, viewed, and
considered the
Learning
Resources and has
read, viewed, or
considered a
sampling of
colleagues'
postings -Meet the
minimum
requirements for
discussion posts*.

synthesis but rely
more on anecdotal
than scholarly
evidence; and/or –
Do not adequately
demonstrate that
the student has
read, viewed, and
considered the
Learning –
Resources and/or
a sampling of
colleagues'
postings; and/or
has posted by the
due date at least in
part. – Lack ability
to generalize and
extend thinking
and evaluate
theories or
concepts within
the topic or
context of the
discussion. -Do
not meet the
minimum
requirements for
discussion posts*.

more on anecdotal
than scholarly
evidence. – Lack
ability to
generalize and
extend thinking
and evaluate
theories or
concepts within
the topic or
context of the
discussion. -Do
not demonstrate
that the student
has read, viewed,
and considered
the Learning
Resources and/or
a sampling of
colleagues’
postings; and/or
does not meet the
minimum
requirements for
discussion posts*.

CONTENT
KNOWLEDGE

Points Range: 8
(26.67%) – 8
(26.67%)
Discussion

Points Range: 7
(23.33%) – 7
(23.33%)
Discussion

Points Range: 6

NURS 8210 Discussion Week 4Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:

(20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion
postings and

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion
postings and

postings and
responses: –
demonstrate in-
depth
understanding and
application of
concepts and
issues presented
in the course (e.g.,
insightful
interpretations

including
analysis, synthesis
and/or evaluation
of topic; – are well
supported by
pertinent
research/evidence
from a variety of
and multiple peer-
reviewed books
and journals,
where
appropriate; –
Demonstrate
significant
mastery and
thoughtful/accurat
e application of
content,
applicable skills
or strategies
presented in the
course.

postings and
responses: –
demonstrate
understanding and
application of the
concepts and
issues presented
in the course,
presented with
some
understanding and
application of
concepts and
issues presented
in the course (e.g.,
insightful
interpretations
including
analysis, synthesis
and/or evaluation
of topic; -are
supported by
research/evidence
from peer-
reviewed books
and journals,
where
appropriate; and ·
demonstrate some
mastery and
application of
content,
applicable skills,
or strategies
presented in the
course.

responses: –
demonstrate
minimal
understanding of
concepts and
issues presented
in the course, and,
although generally
accurate, display
some omissions
and/or errors;
–lack support by
research/evidence
and/or the
research/evidence
is inappropriate or
marginal in
quality; and/or
lack of analysis,
synthesis or
evaluation of
topic –
demonstrate
minimal content,
skills or strategies
presented in the
course. ——-
Contain numerous
errors when using
the skills or
strategies
presented in the
course

responses
demonstrate: -A
lack of
understanding of
the concepts and
issues presented
in the course;
and/or are
inaccurate,
contain many
omissions and/or
errors; and/or are
not supported by
research/evidence;
and/or lack of
analysis, synthesis
or evaluation of
topic -Many
critical errors
when discussing
content,
applicable skills
or strategies
presented in the
course.

CONTRIBUTIO
N TO THE
DISCUSSION

Points Range: 8
(26.67%) – 8
(26.67%)
Discussion
postings and
responses
significantly
contribute to the
quality of the
discussion/interact

Points Range: 7
(23.33%) – 7
(23.33%)
Discussion
postings and
responses
contribute to the
quality of the
discussion/interact
ion and thinking

Points Range: 6
(20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion
postings and
responses
minimally
contribute to the
quality of
discussion/interact
ion and thinking

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion
postings and
responses do not
contribute to the
quality of
interaction/discuss
ion and thinking
and learning as

ion and thinking
and learning by: –
providing Rich
and relevant
examples;
discerning and
thought-
provoking ideas;
and stimulating
thoughts and
probes; – –
demonstrating
original thinking,
new perspectives,
and extensive
synthesis of ideas
supported by the
literature.

and learning by –
providing relevant
examples;
thought-
provoking ideas –
Demonstrating
synthesis of ideas
supported by the
literature

and learning by: –
providing few
and/or irrelevant
examples; and/or –
providing few if
any thought-
provoking ideas;
and/or -.
Information that is
restated from the
literature with
no/little
demonstration of
critical thinking or
synthesis of ideas.

they do not: –
Provide examples
(or examples are
irrelevant); and/or
-Include
interesting
thoughts or ideas;
and/or –
Demonstrate of
critical thinking or
synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF
WRITING

Points Range: 6
(20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion
postings and
responses exceed
doctoral -level
writing
expectations.
They: · Use
grammar and
syntax that is
clear, concise, and
appropriate to
doctoral level
writing; · Make
few if any errors
in spelling,
grammar, and
syntax; · Use
original language
and refrain from
directly quoting
original source
materials; –
provide correct
APA · Are
positive,
courteous, and

Points Range: 5
(16.67%) – 5
(16.67%)
Discussion
postings and
responses meet
doctoral -level
writing
expectations.
They: ·Use
grammar and
syntax that is clear
and appropriate to
doctoral level
writing; ; · Make
a few errors in
spelling,
grammar, and
syntax; ·
paraphrase but
refrain from
directly quoting
original source
materials; Provide
correct APA
format · Are
courteous and
respectful when

Points Range: 4
(13.33%) – 4
(13.33%)
Discussion
postings and
responses are
minimally below
doctoral-level
writing
expectations.
They: · Make
more than
occasional errors
in spelling,
grammar, and
syntax; · Directly
quote from
original source
materials and/or
paraphrase rather
than use original
language; lack
correct APA
format; and/or ·
Are less than
courteous and
respectful when
offering

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 3 (10%)
Discussion
postings and
responses are well
below doctoral –
level writing
expectations.
They: · Use
grammar and
syntax that is that
is unclear · Make
many errors in
spelling,
grammar, and
syntax; and –use
incorrect APA
format · Are
discourteous and
disrespectful
when offering
suggestions,
feedback, or
opposing
viewpoints.

respectful when
offering
suggestions,
constructive
feedback, or
opposing
viewpoints.

offering
suggestions,
constructive
feedback, or
opposing
viewpoints;.

suggestions,
feedback, or
opposing
viewpoints.

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