NURS 8302 Strategies for Building Effective Teams Discussion

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

NURS 8302 Strategies for Building Effective Teams Discussion

NURS 8302 Strategies for Building Effective Teams Discussion

You have been assigned to work on a team to support a new quality improvement
initiative at your nursing practice. The initiative is designed to support and improve
patient care, and the team is tasked with leading the initiative. The team is comprised of
the best and the brightest the nursing practice has to offer, selecting only the leaders of
each department. However, after the first team meeting, you discover the team dynamics
might lead to more argument than action.

Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

If this concern manifests this early in the planning process of a quality improvement initiative, is
this team the most effective for this task? What strategy might work best to ensure that the right
team is composed for the task ahead?
Working in teams provides an important benefit to addressing a problem. A team can provide
nuanced ideas and strategies that might be missed by working individually. Teams help to lessen
the load on an individual, as well as provide different perspectives to spark ideas. However,
working in teams is not without its challenges.
A mix of personalities, experiences, and styles can make or break a team, so what are the best
ways to build an effective team? What strategies can be utilized to minimize any adverse effects
of working in teams?
For this Discussion, consider what makes an effective team. What strategies might you use to
build an effective team? Who might need to be included in a team? Consider the use of teams for
quality improvement, and analyze what would make an effective team for a quality improvement
initiative.
To Prepare:
 Review the Learning Resources for this week, and consider the potential impact and role
of teams in quality improvement.
 Reflect on potential strategies for building effective teams in promoting quality
improvement initiatives for nursing practice and/or healthcare organizations.
 Consider the type of stakeholders that might comprise these teams and potential
challenges for “earning a seat at the table” of such a quality improvement team.
By Day 3 of Week 7

Post a brief explanation of a strategy you might recommend for building effective teams to
support a quality improvement initiative in your healthcare organization or nursing practice. Be
specific. Briefly describe the stakeholders you would recommend to make up this quality
improvement team, and explain why. Be sure to define the roles of the members making up the
quality improvement team. Then, explain any potential challenges or considerations you should
keep in mind that may affect who might “earn a seat at the table” to comprise this team. Be
specific and provide examples.
By Day 6 of Week 7
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
strategy recommendation and/or alternative stakeholders to take part in the quality improvement
team 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 7 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 of Week 7 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 7

To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 7 Discussion
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.

Content
Name: NURS_8302_Week7_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

Points Range: 5
(5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.
May contain one
to two
grammatical or

Points Range: 4
(4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat
concisely.
May contain more
than two spelling

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written
clearly or
concisely.
Contains more

spelling errors.
Adheres to current
APA manual
writing rules and
style.

spelling errors.
Adheres to current
APA manual
writing rules and
style.

or grammatical
errors.
Contains some
APA formatting
errors.

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

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NURS 8302 Strategies for Building Effective Teams Discussion

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

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.
Response to

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.

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

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:

Points Range: 6
(6%) – 6 (6%)

Points Range: 5
(5%) – 5 (5%)

Points Range: 4
(4%) – 4 (4%)

Points Range: 0
(0%) – 3 (3%)

Writing 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.

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.

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.

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_Week7_Discussion_Rubric

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