coursework-banner

NURS 8100 Health Policy Proposal Analysis (Policy Brief)

NURS 8100 Health Policy Proposal Analysis (Policy Brief)

NURS 8100 Health Policy Proposal Analysis (Policy Brief)

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NURS 8100 Health Policy Proposal Analysis (Policy Brief)

Nurses engaged in the policy arena often are asked to provide information on a health care topic of interest to policy makers. This is frequently accomplished through developing a policy brief. A policy brief advocates for a particular recommendation (prior to the enactment of a policy). Learning how to write a policy brief in a clear, succinct, scholarly, and professional manner is an essential skill for advanced practice nurses.

For this Assignment, you will assess one of the recommendations from the Institute of Medicine’s The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health: Report Recommendations. You will then develop a policy brief to advocate for this recommendation (the written policy brief is due in Week 7).

I love your “distraction” strategy and the “Do Not Disturb” sign! I believe that is a wonderful strategy. Thank you for sharing.

I always found that visualizing my was goals helpful, especially when I became discouraged. When I was doing my doctoral studies I would make a simple pie graph and fill it in as I completed my assignments and written work. It really helped me to see how much closer I was to finishing my studies and kept me on track.

I do not know how anyone can be successful in this program without being able to manage their time and having at least fundamental ability to create a Excel spreadsheet, etc..  I think one strategy that has empowered me is the ability to use and understand technology.  During my doctoral studies, I learned how technology can improve and challenge one at the same time.

A strategy that I feel is one of the most important is that of effective communication, also. Reading writings a loud prior to posting, is something I utilized even when no one was listening to me. When I could snag someone to hearing me reading aloud, I would read some paragraphs aloud and then try to summarize what I had read aloud, as though I was teaching the content. I found this useful. Perhaps it would work for some of you, too.

Dr. Harvey

References

Laureate Education (Producer). (2012a). Effective online communication: Scholarly writing in online discussion [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

Laureate Education (Producer). (2012f). Tips for effective online composition and communication [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

To prepare:

Review the Lavis et al. article on preparing and writing policy briefs provided in the Learning Resources.
Select one of the recommendations within the IOM The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health: Report Recommendations to focus on for this assignment.
Research the history of the problem behind the recommendation and what has been done to try to solve the problem.
What does the recommendation say should be done? Are there any groups, nursing and others, currently supporting work to implement the recommendation (e.g., Kaiser Family Foundation, professional organizations)? Does the recommendation suggest specific groups that should be involved in the implementation? Think critically about how the recommendation should be implemented – did the IOM get it right? What other strategies are possible to consider?
By Day 7 of Week 7

To complete:

Develop a scholarly and professionally written 2- to 3-page single-spaced policy brief on the recommendation you selected from the IOM report following the format presented in the Lavis et al. article. Include the following:
Short introduction with statement of the problem.
The selected recommendation (from the IOM Report)
Background
Current characteristics
The impact of the recommendation from the perspective of consumers, nurses, other health professionals, and additional stakeholders
Current solutions
Current status in the health policy arena
Final conclusions
Resources used to create the policy brief

Due by Day 7 of Week 7. Complete instructions for submitting your Assignment are provided in the Week 7 Assignment area.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NURS 8100 Health Policy Proposal Analysis (Policy Brief)NURS 8100 Health Policy Proposal Analysis (Policy Brief)

Note: You will post a summary of your policy brief in the Week 7 Discussion.

Assignment 2: Health Policy Proposal Analysis (Policy Brief)

Program LOs: 4, 5

4: Professions/Collaborators

5: Effective Communicators

DNP Essentials: 5, 6

5: Healthcare Policy for Advocacy in Healthcare

6: Interprofessional collaboration for Improving Patient and Population Health Outcomes (Scroll down for table)

ASSIGNMENT PROMPT

Policy Brief Paper

Target

5 points

Acceptable

3 points

Unacceptable

1 point

Score/Level

Part 1:2- to 3-page single-spaced policy brief on the recommendation you selected from the IOM report following the format presented in the Lavis et al. article. Include the following:

Short introduction with statement of the problem.

The selected recommendation (from the IOM Report)

Background

Current characteristics

The impact of the recommendation from the perspective of consumers, nurses, other health professionals, and additional stakeholders

Current solutions

Current status in the health policy arena

Final conclusions

Resources used to create the policy brief

Program LO: 4, 5

DNP Essential: 5, 6 Exemplary quality.

Content is of a professional portfolio quality; addresses questions/issues discussed in the interview; Applies advanced critical thinking skills; does not summarize or paraphrase the content of the literature review; instead, demonstrates content mastery using examples of and/or personalized reflections about the content of the literature review; demonstrates an applied level of understanding through personalized reflections about Excels in meeting expectations for graduate level work.

Fully meets expectations for LOs 4 and 5.

Fully meets expectations for Essentials 5 and 6.Well-developed good quality work.

Content is of a professional portfolio quality; addresses at least 80% of the major subsections in the assignment using adequate critical thinking skills; includes some summarizing or paraphrasing of literature review; demonstration of content mastery using examples of and/or personalized reflections about the content of the literature review; demonstration of an applied level of understanding through personalized reflections about the content area. It fully meets expectations for graduate level work.

Meets expectations for LOs 4, 5.

Meets expectations for Essentials 5, 6.Superficially developed, unacceptable quality.

Content needs substantial revision for it to be of a professional portfolio quality; addresses less than 50% of the major subsections in the assignment using weak critical thinking skills; consists primarily of a summary of main ideas from the literature review; does not demonstrate an applied level of understanding. Does not meet expectations for graduate level work.

Insufficient to meet expectations for graduate work for LOs 4, 5.

Insufficient Essentials 5, 6.

Part 2: References and APA requirements

Format applied as presented in the Lavis et al. article.

The majority of references are from scholarly journals, supports the topic well, and are current. Paper stays within page requirements.  APA format used correctly throughout. Application of the Lavis article.

Excels in meeting expectations for graduate level work.

Most references are from scholarly journals and support the topic. Most references are fairly current. The paper stays within requirements. APA format used with minimal errors.

Meets expectations for graduate level work.

References are not sufficient or are mostly from the lay literature or out of date. The paper is either too long or too short. Weak writing quality and/or little evidence of correctness of APA format.

Does not meet expectations for graduate work.

Assignment:

By Day 7 of Week 9

To complete:

Develop a scholarly and professionally written 2- to 3-page single-spaced policy brief on the recommendation you selected from the IOM report following the format presented in the Lavis et al. article. Include the following:

Phase 1 (5 points)

Short introduction with statement of the problem.
The selected recommendation (from the IOM Report)
Background
Current characteristics
The impact of the recommendation from the perspective of consumers, nurses, other health professionals, and additional stakeholders
Current solutions
Current status in the health policy arena

Phase 2 (5 points)

Levis article format applied
Resources used to create the policy brief

Total points = 10

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.
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.
Total Points: 30