NURS 8100 Discussion Policy Brief
NURS 8100 Discussion Policy Brief
People’s productivity depends on their health statuses, and it is crucial to keep health at an optimal level always. Disappointingly, many problems hampering care provision at the global, state, and community levels make it challenging to achieve the optimization required. For instance, the world’s global warming level keeps on rising, risking the populace’s health. Due to the far-reaching effects of such problems, public health policies usually play a fundamental role in controlling the magnitude of damage and remedy situations. The declining state of air quality in California due to pollution is a worrying issue that can be remedied through policy interventions.
Policy Health Issue: Description
The respiratory system functions at the best level required when people breathe fresh air. Despite this general fact, not many people are guaranteed quality air as pollution levels increase progressively. As highlighted in the American Public Health Association (APHA) website, climate change over the years has been increasing ground-level ozone and other types of air pollution, and the state of California is among the most affected. Frankly, the entire population is affected, but the damage is more severe among older people due to their low immunity levels (Simoni et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2015). They appear the most affected since the direct consequences of air pollution such as air toxics and particulate matter increase their hospitalization and infection with asthma and bronchitis. California has eight out of the ten most polluted cities in the United States (American Lung Association, 2020). This figure implies that the problem is critical in California, and more interventions to supplement the current frameworks are crucial.
Problem Statement
The environment plays an instrumental role in keeping people healthy. Food production and quality of air depend, to a large extent, on the climatic patterns. When climate change is unfavorable, the entire population faces considerable risks, which typifies what has been happening in California. According to Cart (2020), air pollution has been worsening over time; its severity can be confirmed because staying at home during the Covid-19 pandemic has not decreased it to the level required in any notable way. Emissions that increase the danger have been increasing over time too. Sommer et al. (2020) noted that emissions, combined with hot and stagnant weather, make air pollution hit dangerous levels, particularly in the summer, leading to a scenario where California does not comply with federal air standards. Such situations need robust policies to remedy.
The current situation and notable efforts show that there has been an effort to reduce air toxicity in California, but there is a lot to be done. The extent of danger is greater than the control measures. For instance, pollution reductions under the Clean Air Act have prevented approximately 205,000 premature deaths (Revesz & Lienke, 2016). However, the general objective of policies and supplementary laws should be to accomplish a state where every population segment is safe. Policies should further protect the most vulnerable, which does not happen in California.
The Current Policy: Breathing Fresh Act of California
From a general viewpoint, this policy is anchored on the idea principle that a policy should define a vision for the future. The Breathing Fresh Act follows a similar concept with the Clean Air Act but improves when it comes to reviewing. Unlike requiring the state to review its environmental protection guidelines after eight years like the Clean Air Act, the Breathing Fresh Act will obligate the state to review its rules every three years. Furthermore, all organizations should have elaborate social responsibility programs centered on environmental protection while concentrating on making the air free from pollution.
Initiating this policy follows the general procedure of policymaking. The first step is identifying the need, which has already been done. The damaging effect of toxic air should be minimized to health-friendly levels. The second step is delegating responsibility. A team should work on it to develop ways in which the authorities will be reached and informed. After that, a draft policy will be composed, followed by consultation with appropriate stakeholders. Here, the target stakeholders are the politicians and other government officials, particularly the Senator, who can sponsor the recommendations as a bill. The main budgetary consideration to make is how to print copies of the act and distribute it to influential individuals at the community level.
Impact on the Health Care Delivery System
Health care provision is centered on a patient-centered practice that prioritizes quality. In agreement with Bhatt and Bathija (2018), one way of ensuring that people get quality care is by reducing infections as much as possible and protecting the vulnerable populations with more resources. Health care providers should never be overburdened too. Implementing the Breath Fresh Act implies that the California health care fraternity and the government are committed to reducing respiratory infections in the state. Doing so will keep everyone safe from such infections and ensure that the state’s productivity does not decline as industrialization that increases air pollution grows at all levels.
Admittedly, no state can guarantee its people total protection from illnesses. Challenges must emerge often, and environmental damage has been a leading source of public health problems. In California, air quality has been declining due to continuous pollution, causing diseases such as asthma and bronchitis. The proposed policy recognizes the need for practical and long-lasting solutions to such problems. It is hoped to make a massive impact on keeping people productive at the community, state, and national levels.
References
American Lung Association. (2020, Apr 21). Nearly half of US breathing unhealthy air; record-breaking air pollution in nine cities. Eureka Alert!. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-04/ala-nho041720.php
Bhatt, J., & Bathija, P. (2018). Ensuring access to quality health care in vulnerable communities. Academic Medicine, 93(9), 1271-1275. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002254
Cart, J. (2020, Apr 12). As Californians stay at home, air quality improves – for now. Cal Matters. https://calmatters.org/health/2020/04/as-californians-stay-at-home-air-quality-improves-for-now/
Chen, Z., Salam, M. T., Eckel, S. P., Breton, C. V., & Gilliland, F. D. (2015). Chronic effects of air pollution on respiratory health in Southern California children: findings from the Southern California Children’s Health Study. Journal of thoracic disease, 7(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.12.20
Revesz, R. L., & Lienke, J. (2016). Struggling for air: Power plants and the “war on coal”. Oxford University Press.
Simoni, M., Baldacci, S., Maio, S., Cerrai, S., Sarno, G., & Viegi, G. (2015). Adverse effects of outdoor pollution in the elderly. Journal of thoracic disease, 7(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.12.10
Sommer, L., Hersher, R., Jingnan, H., & Beniscasa, R. (2020, May 19). Traffic Is Way Down Because Of Lockdown, But Air Pollution? Not So Much. NPR.
Professional nursing organizations have influenced the policy agenda by identifying needs, developing ideas, and bringing them to the policy table; they have had a positive impact on both the nursing profession and nursing practice. This week’s Discussion asks you to think about the policy proposal you looked at for the policy brief (Assignment 2, due in Week 3) and consider what opportunities a professional nursing organization might have to advance the issue.
To prepare:
Review this week’s media presentation focusing on Dr. White and Dr. Stanley’s comments on the role of professional organizations in the policy process.
Consider the policy brief you developed for Application Assignment 2 (due this week), and evaluate how a professional nursing organization might provide additional support or influence.
By Day 3
Post in your small group thread a cohesive response that addresses the following:
Briefly summarize the policy proposal you selected from the IOM Future of Nursing Practice Report Brief (Application 2). Based on your analysis of the policy proposal, did the IOM get it right?
Identify any professional organizations dealing with the issue/recommendation and provide at least two specific ways in which the professional organizations have supported or could support the policy proposal/recommendation.
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.
Note: Please see the Syllabus and Discussion Rubric for formal Discussion question posting and response evaluation criteria.
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.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 7 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6
To participate in this Discussion:
Week 7 Discussion
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Future of Nursing Report Brief addresses four very important elements of nursing practice that are in need of change. According to Kershaw (2011), the four areas of needed change include nurses practicing to the fullest scope of their license, nurses engaging in seeking and attaining higher levels of education, nurses being considered as equals with their physician colleagues when taking the initiative to redesign health care, and nurses creating a foundation of data through research and evidence-based practice to support policies and procedures in nursing practice.
The area of specific interest to me is item number three. This initiative focuses on nurses becoming full partners with physicians when redesigning healthcare in the United States (Kershawm 2011). The reason this initiative is important to me is that I work in an acute care setting where physicians are still revered as gods by the hospital leadership and nurses are considered the handmaiden to the physician. It is a large hospital but set in a rural community and the founding fathers who opened the community hospital 16 years ago (Now part of a larger system) were very physician-focused. The bylaws do not promote employing mid-level practitioners, they do not recognize that certified nurse-midwives can practice independently, and have a strong working relationship with a Kaiser Permanente group that feels very threatened by the thought of utilizing mid-level providers and advance practice nurses (APNs). According to Abraham et al. (2019), APNs are far more cost-effective than physicians, and they increase patient experience scores and clinical outcomes. Constable et al. (2022) describe an increase in provider communications scores from 69% to 85% when APRNs were used in the acute care setting. This specific article also outlined a reduction in endotracheal tube-associated pressure injuries by 50% because of the care the APN provided to this population. The reason for this is that APNs are trained to treat patients holistically and not be solely focused on a diagnosis or disease. Physicians are trained with a primary focus on disease. Collaboration between these two groups is essential when health care reform is being considered.
The IOM report brief nailed this issue on the head. There is a need to include APNs in health care reform and the recommendation in the article suggests this will happen through leadership training and the attainment of leadership competencies by all APNs. The American Organization of Nurse Executives (AONE) offers leadership training for all levels of nurse leaders. The sole focus of the AONE is to promote leadership excellence among nurses, advance the practice, increase the engagement of research by nurses, and facilitate the preparation of nurses who will influence legislation and public policy (www.aha.org). For far too long the shape of health care has been formed by only a select portion of the population who provides it. Now is the time to think globally about healthcare reform and invite all of the contributors to the table.
References:
Abraham, C. M., Norful, A. A., Stone, P. W., &Poghosyan, L. (2019). Cost-Effectiveness of Advanced Practice Nurses Compared to Physician-Led Care for Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review. Nursing Economic$, 37(6), 293–305.
American Organization of Nurse Executives. (February, 2022). AHA releases 2022-2024 strategic plan and updates to vision and mission statements. Retrieved: https://www.aha.org/special-bulletin/2022-02-08-aha-releases-2022-2024-strategic-plan-and-updates-vision-and-mission
Constable, M., Mulkey, M., &Aucoin, J. (2022). Hospital value–based purchasing: How acute care advanced practice nurses demonstrate value. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 34(1), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000000606
Kershaw, B. (2011). The future of nursing – leading change, advancing health. Nursing Standard, 26(7), 31–31. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2011.10.26.7.31.b1274
Name: NURS_8100_Week7_Discussion_Rubric
Grid View
List View
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.
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, 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*.
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 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*.
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 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*.
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 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 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.
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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
Points Range: 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
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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
Points Range: 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.
Points Range: 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
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 respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
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 offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.
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 suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.