NURS 8302 Quality Improvement Initiative Discussion

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

NURS 8302 Quality Improvement Initiative Discussion

NURS 8302 Quality Improvement Initiative Discussion

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:

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

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

Points Range: 4
(4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat
concisely.
May contain more
than two spelling
or grammatical
errors.
Contains some
APA formatting

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written
clearly or
concisely.
Contains more
than two spelling
or grammatical
errors.
Does not adhere

style. style. errors. 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

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

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.

Points Range: 5
(5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is
mostly
professional and
respectful to
colleagues.
Response to
faculty questions
are mostly
answered, if
posed.

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.

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.

Provides clear,
concise opinions
and ideas that are
supported by two
or more credible
sources.
Response is
effectively written
in standard, edited
English.

Provides opinions
and ideas that are
supported by few
credible sources.
Response is
written in
standard, edited
English.

Few or 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.

Points Range: 5
(5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is
mostly
professional and
respectful to
colleagues.

Points Range: 4
(4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in
the Discussion
may lack effective
professional
communication.

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted
in the Discussion
lack effective
communication.

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.

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.

Response to
faculty questions
are somewhat
answered, if
posed.
Few or no
credible sources
are cited.

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.

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