NURS 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization
Walden University NURS 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization-Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University NURS 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization 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 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University NURS 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization 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 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization
The introduction for the Walden University NURS 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization 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 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization
After the introduction, move into the main part of the NURS 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization 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 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization
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 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization
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 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization 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 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization
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.
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization
Sample Answer 2 for NURS 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization
Primary care clinics manage several chronic diseases, and diabetes is one such chronic disease requiring intense management. However, evidence suggests clinical practice gaps in diabetes care (Mukerji et al.,2019). As a family nurse practitioner and certified diabetes care specialist affiliated at a community clinic, applying a quality improvement (QI) strategy are apparent in improving such gaps in care delivery. One way of such an application is developing a QI team. Quality improvement teams are mechanism healthcare industry utilize to initiate and implement improvements within its organization (Rowland et al., 2018). This team comprises individuals from various disciplines and departments working together to identify problems, design solutions through testing, and implement a sustainable plan to accomplish the QI goals set in place (Rowland et al., 2018). Therefore, it becomes essential for a successful improvement effort to include the right people within the organization as team members suitable to meet the needs of the organization or department (Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2021).
The effectiveness of the QI process often depends on the ability of the improvement team members to work well together with the healthcare system. Some of the qualities of a team member include but are not limited to the following: one respected by a broad range of staff, a team player, a good communicator and listener, a problem solver, creative, and one who is ready for change due to frustration with the current situation. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health and Services Administration. (n.d.)). Additionally, it is also important to include members possessing three different kinds of expertise within the organization, namely system leadership, technical expertise, and day-to-day leadership, to drive improvement successfully (Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2021).
The role of a strong leader is crucial because such a leader should understand the implications of the changes and the consequences of the proposed change to the organizational system; therefore, the leader should be one with clinical expertise with authority in the healthcare organization. For example, the medical director of the community primary care center’s primary is the QI leader of our organization. Secondly is selecting a technical expert knowledge about the care process, providing technical support, assisting with design, measuring tools, interpreting, and displaying data such as models for improvement, the plan do-study act cycles, workflow mapping (AHRQ, 2013).
Thirdly, is selecting day-to-day leadership. According to IHI (2021), this individual team member has a vital role because they oversee data collection, ensure implementation, and understand the system’s details and the effects of making changes in the system. Additionally, this individual should have a good working relationship with the leader and front-line clinician, or nurse manager fit such description. Lastly is the project sponsor, who can be the chief operating officer in an organization who may not necessarily participate with the QI team but stay apprised with teams’ progress because of the crucial position by serving as a link to the QI team and senior management in obtaining resources and help overcome barriers on behalf of the team (AHRQ, 2013).
Finally, stakeholders in a QI team are those staff members, physicians, such as nurses, Dietitians, medical assistants who have an interest and can influence the outcome of QI implementation. Organizations such as primary care clinics or any healthcare setting embarking on QI should seek and identify stakeholders who will buy in to change projects early to develop a positive relationship, thus preventing conflict and delays of project implementation from creating sustainable change in the organization (AHRQ, 2013).
References
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2013). Model 14. Creating quality improvement teams and QI plans. https://www.ahrq.gov/ncepcr/tools/pf-handbook/mod14.html
Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (n.d.). Science of improvement: Forming the team. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/HowtoImprove/ScienceofImprovementFormingtheTeam.aspx
Mukerji, G., Halperin, I., Segal, P., Sutton, L., Wong, R., Caplan, L., Whitham, D., and Gilmour, J. A. (2019). Beginning a diabetes quality improvement project. Canadian Journal of Diabetes. 43(4): 234-240
Rowland, P., Lising, D., Sinclair, L., Baker, R. G. (2018). Team dynamics within quality improvement teams: a scoping review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 30(6), 416–422
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health and Services Administration. (n.d.). Improvement teams. http:// www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/quality/toolbox/508pdfs/improvementteams.pdf.
Sample Answer 3 for NURS 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization
The health practice is characterized by processes that can be measured, analyzed, and improved as situations obligate. As a result, health care organizations implement different quality improvement (QI) initiatives to improve health care delivery. QI models provide a structured, usually stepwise, approach for executing quality improvement. This discussion explains the Root Cause Analysis (RCA) model and its application in nursing practice in response to an adverse event.
Model’s Explanation and Components
RCA analyzes serious adverse events through a structured approach. The model’s fundamental principle is identifying underlying problems increasing the likelihood of errors in health care settings, and avoiding the trap of focusing on individual mistakes (Shah & Godambe, 2021). Generally, RCA uses the systems approach to identify and respond to active and latent errors. The model has three basic components. The first component is data. RCA’s protocol commences with data collection through record review and participant interviews (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2019). The second component is a multidisciplinary team that analyzes the events causing an error. Thirdly, latent errors are eliminated to prevent future harm (Martin-Delgado et al., 2020). Such an approach allows health care organizations to study events retrospectively.
Implementing RCA in the Nursing Practice
Medication errors increase admission rates and quality improvement to prevent their occurrence. RCA would effectively suit scenarios where health care providers want to understand the root of medication errors and address them appropriately. For instance, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2019) gives an example of a patient on anticoagulants who received an intramuscular pneumococcal vaccination. The adverse event caused hematoma and prolonged hospitalization. Applying RCA in such situations requires data collection and a multidisciplinary team to analyze the events leading to the error. Analyzing the root of the problem would be the basis of error elimination to prevent the recurrence of similar adverse events.
In conclusion, RCA provides a systematic, structured method for addressing adverse events. Its core components include data, a multidisciplinary team, and error elimination. The model ensures that health care providers can understand how and why the adverse event occurred through its systematic identification and analysis.
References
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2019). Root cause analysis. https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primer/root-cause-analysis
Martin-Delgado, J., Martínez-García, A., Aranaz, J. M., Valencia-Martín, J. L., & Mira, J. J. (2020). How much of root cause analysis translates into improved patient safety: A Systematic review. Medical Principles and Practice, 29(6), 524-531. https://doi.org/10.1159/000508677
Shah, R. K., & Godambe, S. A. (2021). Patient safety and quality improvement in healthcare: A case-based approach. Springer.
Content
Name: NURS_8302_Week7_Discussion_Rubric
| 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 style. |
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 style. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more 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 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 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. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
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. |
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. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
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. |
|
| 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. 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. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
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. |
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. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
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. |
|
| 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 | |||||