NURS 8302 Assignment Applying Project Management

NURS 8302 Assignment Applying Project Management

Approaches for a Quality Improvement
Practice Gap
Project management allows for a clear and focused workflow to approach an issue or
task. These approaches streamline a process, allow for checks and balances, and ensure
all stakeholders are active participants in the process. Project management approaches
often utilize SMART objectives to define and set the objectives for the project.

Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

Each letter of the acronym SMART defines a different criterion for the objective. A SMART
objective is specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, and timely. These objectives help to steer
the work and direct the stakeholders to the completion of the project.
For this Assignment, you will reflect on project management approaches that could be used to
address a quality improvement practice gap. You will develop SMART objectives for the
planning and execution of a quality improvement project, and will consider potential project
management approaches or activities that could be used in executing this project.
To Prepare:
 Review the Learning Resources for this week, and consider the approaches of project
management.
 Refer to the Week 3 Discussion, and reflect on the quality improvement practice gap you
identified.
 Consider how you might apply the project management approaches examined this week
to address the quality improvement practice gap you identified.
 Think about how you might develop SMART objectives for the planning and execution
of a project to address the quality improvement practice gap you identified.
 Consider any other project management approaches or activities you might recommend
using for your project that will address the quality improvement practice gap you
identified.
The Assignment: (2–3 pages)
 Briefly describe the quality improvement practice gap you identified in your nursing
practice or organization. Be specific.
 Develop at least two SMART objectives you might apply in the project planning phase or
execution phase to address the quality improvement practice gap you identified.

 Recommend at least two project management activities you would use for your project,
addressing the quality improvement practice gap you identified. Explain your
justification for why these activities would provide the best support. Be specific and
provide examples.
Reminder: The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page,
introduction, summary, and references. The Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing
Center provides an example of those required elements (available at
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general#s-lg-box-20293632). All
papers submitted must use this formatting.
By Day 7
Submit your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 4.
Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
 Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK4Assgn1+last name+first
initial.(extension)” as the name.
 Click the Week 4 Assignment 1 Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the
Assignment.
 Click the Week 4 Assignment 1 link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading
criteria from this area.
 Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the
document you saved as “WK4Assgn1+last name+first initial.(extension)” and
click Open.
 If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit
my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
 Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:
Week 4 Assignment 1 Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:
Submit your Week 4 Assignment 1 draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 4

To participate in this Assignment:
Week 4 Assignment 1

Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Content
Name: NURS_8302_Week4_Assignment1_Rubric
 Grid View
 List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Briefly describe
the quality
improvement
practice gap you
identified in your
nursing practice
or organization.
Be specific.

Points Range: 23
(23%) – 25 (25%)
The response
accurately and
clearly describes
in detail the
quality
improvement
practice gap
identified in their
nursing practice or
organization.

Points Range: 20
(20%) – 22 (22%)
The response
accurately
describes the
quality
improvement
practice gap
identified in their
nursing practice or
organization.
The response

Points Range: 18
(18%) – 19 (19%)
The response
inaccurately or
vaguely describes
the quality
improvement
practice gap
identified in their
nursing practice or
organization.
The response

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 17 (17%)
The response
inaccurately and
vaguely describes
the quality
improvement
practice gap
identified in their
nursing practice or
organization, or it
is missing.

The response
provides accurate
and specific
details that fully
support the
selection of the
quality
improvement
practice gap
identified.

provides accurate
details that
support the
selection of the
quality
improvement
practice gap
identified.

provides
inaccurate or
vague details that
may support the
selection of the
quality
improvement
practice gap
identified.

The response
provides
inaccurate and
vague details that
do not support the
selection of the
quality
improvement
practice gap
identified, or it is
missing.

Develop at least
two SMART
objectives you
might apply in
the project
planning phase
or execution
phase to address
the quality
improvement
practice gap you
identified.

Points Range: 32
(32%) – 35 (35%)
The response
accurately and
completely
develops two
SMART
objectives that
comprehensively
address the quality
improvement gap
identified.

Points Range: 28
(28%) – 31 (31%)
The response
accurately
develops two
SMART
objectives to
address the quality
improvement gap
identified.

Points Range: 25
(25%) – 27 (27%)
The response
inaccurately or
vaguely develops
two SMART
objectives to
address the quality
improvement gap
identified. OR
The response
develops less than
two SMART
objectives.

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 24 (24%)
The response
inaccurately and
vaguely develops
two SMART
objectives to
address the quality

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NURS 8302 Assignment Applying Project Management

improvement gap
identified, or it is
missing.

Recommend at
least two project
management
activities you
would use for
your project
addressing the
quality
improvement
practice gap you
identified, and
explain your
justification for
why these
activities would
provide the best
support. Be
specific, and
provide
examples.

Points Range: 23
(23%) – 25 (25%)
The response
accurately and
clearly describes
in detail two
project
management
activities to
address the quality
improvement
practice gap
identified.
The response
includes relevant,
specific, and
appropriate
examples that
fully support the
justification for

Points Range: 20
(20%) – 22 (22%)
The response
accurately
describes two
project
management
activities to
address the quality
improvement
practice gap
identified.
The response
includes relevant,
specific, and
accurate examples
that support the
justification for
the use of project
management

Points Range: 18
(18%) – 19 (19%)
The response
inaccurately or
vaguely describes
two project
management
activities to
address the quality
improvement
practice gap
identified.
OR
The response
recommends less
than two project
management
activities.

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 17 (17%)
The response
inaccurately and
vaguely describes
two project
management
activities to
address the quality
improvement
practice gap
identified, or it is
missing.
The response
includes
inaccurate and
vague examples
that do not
support the
justification for

the use of project
management
activities to
address the quality
improvement
practice gap
identified.

activities to
address the quality
improvement
practice gap
identified.

The response
includes
inaccurate and
irrelevant
examples that may
support the
justification for
the use of project
management
activities to
address the quality
improvement
practice gap
identified.

the use of project
management
activities to
address the quality
improvement
practice gap
identified, or it is
missing.

Written
Expression and
Formatting –
Paragraph
Development and
Organization:
Paragraphs make
clear points that
support well-
developed ideas,
flow logically,
and demonstrate
continuity of
ideas. Sentences
are carefully
focused—neither
long and
rambling nor
short and lacking
substance. A
clear and
comprehensive
purpose
statement and
introduction is
provided which
delineates all
required criteria.

Points Range: 5
(5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and
sentences follow
writing standards
for flow,
continuity, and
clarity.
A clear and
comprehensive
purpose statement,
introduction, and
conclusion is
provided which
delineates all
required criteria.

Points Range: 4
(4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and
sentences follow
writing standards
for flow,
continuity, and
clarity 80% of the
time. Purpose,
introduction, and
conclusion of the
assignment is
stated, yet is brief
and not
descriptive.

Points Range: 3
(3%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and
sentences follow
writing standards
for flow,
continuity, and
clarity 60%–79%
of the time.
Purpose,
introduction, and
conclusion of the
assignment is
vague or off topic.

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 2 (2%)
Paragraphs and
sentences follow
writing standards
for flow,
continuity, and
clarity < 60% of
the time.
No purpose
statement,
introduction, or
conclusion was
provided.

Written
Expression and
Formatting –
English writing

Points Range: 5
(5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct
grammar,

Points Range: 4
(4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1
or 2) grammar,

Points Range: 3
(3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several
(3 or 4) grammar,

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥
5) grammar,

standards:
Correct
grammar,
mechanics, and
proper
punctuation

spelling, and
punctuation with
no errors.

spelling, and
punctuation
errors.

spelling, and
punctuation errors
that interfere with
the reader’s
understanding.

Written
Expression and
Formatting – The
paper follows
correct APA
format for title
page, headings,
font, spacing,
margins,
indentations,
page numbers,
parenthetical/in-
text citations, and
reference list.

Points Range: 5
(5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA
format with no
errors.

Points Range: 4
(4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1
or 2) APA format
errors.

Points Range: 3
(3%) – 3 (3%)
Contains several
(3 or 4) APA
format errors.

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 2 (2%)
Contains many (≥
5) APA format
errors.

Total Points: 100

Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
RESPONSIVENESS 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 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.	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, 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*.	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 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*.	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 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*.	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 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	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion 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/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion 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.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and 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	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and 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.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction 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.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking 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.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as 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	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 respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	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 offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.	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 suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	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.
Total Points: 30

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

RESPONSIVENESS 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 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.

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, 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*.

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 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*.

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 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*.

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 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

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion 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/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion 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.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and 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

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and 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.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction 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.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking 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.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as 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

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

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 offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

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 suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

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.

Total Points: 30