NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law

Walden University NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law-Step-By-Step Guide

This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.

How to Research and Prepare for NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law

Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.

After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.

How to Write the Introduction for NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law

The introduction for the Walden University NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.

How to Write the Body for NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law

After the introduction, move into the main part of the NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.

Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.

How to Write the Conclusion for NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law

After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.

How to Format the References List for NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law

The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.

Stuck? Let Us Help You

Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.

Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.

Sample Answer for NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law

The goals and objectives of the meaningful use program are varied. One of them is to enhance the collaboration between the public as well as clinical healthcare. The collaboration is projected to result in the improvement in quality of care offered to the public due to active stakeholder engagement (Daim, 2019). The other goal of the program is to improve the provision of patient-centered care that prevents health problems and promote health. The use of health information technologies eliminates any possible adverse outcomes due to medical errors. It also increases the effectiveness of clinical follow-up of cases (Slight et al., 2015). Consequently, it is believed that continued use of the health information systems will enhance the provision of patient-centric care to those in need.

The other aim of the meaningful use program is to ensure the protection of the patient information. Institutions of healthcare are required to utilize certified health information systems that safeguard the private and confidential data of their clients. They are needed to adopt sophisticate physical, technical, and administrative safeguards that offer strict access to patients’ data. Healthcare institutions achieve this outcome by encrypting electronic information of their patients. They can also ensure that strict check systems are utilized before healthcare providers access the information they need (Piliouras et al., 2016). Therefore, protection of patient information is important in increasing the use of health information technologies in healthcare.

The other goal of the meaningful program is to enhance the coordination of care in healthcare institutions. Health information technologies such as electronic health records increase the rate at which clinical decisions are made. It enhances the collaborative efforts between the various stakeholders of the healthcare system. The fact that information is readily available implies that clinical decisions can be made with ease based on the health status of the client. The availability of data also increases the efficiency in which the operations of healthcare organizations are done (Piliouras et al., 2016). Consequently, additional benefits such as improvement in patient engagement, quality of care, and consumer satisfaction are achieved.

The success of the meaningful use program is two-fold. For a majority, the program has been successful due to the increase in healthcare coverage in the state. The incidences of adverse medical events have also reduced. The utilization of healthcare services in the state has also risen due to the efficiency associated with delivery of healthcare services. Some of the scholars also argue that the program has failed. The failure is attributed to the program’s failure to address vital human resource issues affecting the US healthcare system. An example is the acute shortage of healthcare workforce to provide the care needed in the state. The failure is also seen in the significant resistance from the healthcare providers in adopting the program (Adler-Milstein et al., 2015). Despite the above challenges, the program has been effective in reducing the costs incurred by healthcare organizations and the patients. The reduction can be seen in the efficient coordination of care and decision-making in healthcare institutions. Quality of care has also improved due to enhanced safety in the nature of care and accessibility as well as the reduction in medical errors (Holman et al., 2016). Therefore, while there are few challenges with the program, it has been effective in improving the quality of care offered to those in need in the state.

“Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret.”
—Confidentiality excerpt from the Hippocratic Oath (as cited in Croll, 2010)

Traditional schools of medicine have a ritual of reciting oath excerpts such as the one above during their graduation ceremonies. Such excerpts usually revolve around a professional’s promise to uphold the ideals of patient safety and confidentiality to the best of his or her ability.

With the continued integration of HIT, and advances in technology such as hand-held computers, new ethical considerations have evolved within health care settings. For example, wireless capabilities can provide easier access to information from unauthorized outside parties. While technological advances have led to improvements in health care, they have also created new vulnerabilities. Doctorally prepared nurses need to be aware of ethical issues surrounding the use of patient information, technology, and the respective liabilities.

Reference:

roll, P. (2010). Privacy, security and access with sensitive health information. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 151, 167–175.

Sample Answer for NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law

To prepare:

Reflect on this week’s Learning Resources, focusing on the ethical and legal issues associated with usage of data and health information.
For this Discussion, identify an ethical issue related to data collection or information management at your organization or one with which you are familiar.
Determine the potential liabilities that this ethical issue presents by reviewing the AMIA Code of Ethics.
Consider the legal aspects of your ethical issue and the steps that could be taken to avoid or minimize risk.

NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law

By Day 3 post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

Describe your selected ethical issue.
Analyze the potential liabilities that this issue poses to the organization by referencing the AMIA Code of Ethics.
Formulate strategies that the organization could implement to address the ethical issue.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

By Day 6 respond to 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.

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.

Also Read: NURS 8210 Week 2 Assignment: Nursing Informatics Pioneers

Click on the Reply button below to post your response.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law

Sample Answer 2 for NURS 8210 Discussion Week 5 Nursing and Health Care Informatics Ethics and the Law

Health information technology is continually changing and evolving. A common trend within healthcare is the movement towards implementing an electronic health record (EHR) (Koontz, 2015). An EHR is a platform which will encompass patient records electronically, however, this creates conflict among various ethical principles (Layman, 2008). With the implementation of an EHR, resides the requirements to ensure that privacy of patient records and information is maintained. To provide further context, in a discussion with a practitioner, it is assumed the highest degree of confidentiality is maintained. However, once this information is placed into an EHR, it is questionable whether boundaries are dissolved as information and charts are accessible by other practitioners (Croll, 2010).

The American Medical Informatics Association provides a code of ethics for practitioners to ensure ethical conduct (Peterson et al., 2018). The code references the use of health information technology and includes the expectations of members. Potential liabilities can be identified in multiple principles. Members are accountable to report issues regarding patient information and systems that could lead to a breech in privacy. This requires the nurse to be responsible for one’s own actions and to be knowledgeable regarding information technology (IT) and reporting processes. Furthermore, a nurse is responsible to ensure they are protecting patient health information. This refers to accessing, storage, and oral communication of patient data. Finally, nurses are responsible to understand given technology and should note limitations and access resources as needed.

To improve the above-mentioned potential liabilities, the education of staff should be considered. Staff should be aware of reporting procedures and be knowledgeable regarding how to access IT if needed. Education should also be provided regarding organizational policies and procedures that refer to privacy standards (Croll, 2010). Staff should understand their requirements when accessing patient charts that include confidential healthcare information. Information technology departments should complete random audits that provides data regarding personnel who are accessing charts. Staff should be aware that they are only to access information for those patients who are within their circle of care (College of Nurses of Ontario, 2019). Finally, it is beneficial to have trained super-users who have a good grasp of the EHR system so that they can support those who do not.

References

College of Nurses of Ontario. (2019). Practice Standard: Confidentiality and Privacy – Personal

Health Information. Retrieved from

https://www.cno.org/globalassets/docs/prac/41069_privacy.pdf

Croll, P. (2010). Privacy, security and access with sensitive health information. Studies in Health

Technology and Informatics, 151, 167-175.

Layman, E. (2008). Ethical Issues and the Electronic Health Record. Health Care Manager, 27,

165-176. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HCM.0000285044.19666.a8

Koontz, L. (2015). Health information privacy in a changing landscape. Journal of American

Society on Aging, 39 (1), 97-104.

Peterson, C., Berner, E., Embi, P., Hollis, K, Goodman, K., Koppel, R., Lehmann, C., Lehmann,

H., Maulden, S., McGregor, K., Solomonides, A., Subbian, V., Terrazas, E., &

Winkelstein, P. AMIA’s code of professional and ethical conduct 2018, Journal of the

American Medical Informatics Association, 25 (11), 1579–

1582, https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocy092

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NURS_8210_Week5_Discussion_Rubric

	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

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

Name: NURS_8210_Week5_Discussion_Rubric