NURS 8302 Discussion Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization

Creating a team to address quality issues is a great way to improve quality in an organization. Having a team address issues as opposed to an individual allows more creative thinking, sharing the workload, and efficient use of resources (U.S. Department of Healthcare and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration, n.d.). A strategy that could be used for building effective teams would be setting ground rules. This strategy would include a clear, written reason for why the team is created and what the aim of the team is. This strategy would also clarify what should and should not be discussed in team meetings. Having agreed upon ground rules can help a team stay focused and can make them more effective because they have clear goals and anyone can speak up when the ground rules are being violated for whatever reason (U.S. Department of Healthcare and Human Services Health Resources and Service Administration, n.d.). This strategy would be particularly effective in my healthcare organization because meetings can tend to go every which way and the real purpose of the meeting can get easily lost through other complaints or tasks that are trying to be accomplished that do not relate to the team meeting goal.

When making a team the stakeholders should have some level of buy in so that they are committed to making the appropriate improvements in quality. There should be a clinical leader, a technical expert, a day-to-day leader and a project sponsor (Institute for Health Improvement, n.d.). There can be more individuals than that, but an effective team makes sure that those areas are covered. The stakeholders in my organization would include the quality manager, the director of nursing, the assistant director of nursing, nursing supervisors, floor nurses, CNAs, wound nurse, doctors, nurse educator infection control, and data analysts. Depending on the reason or purpose for the team the leadership roles could fall on any one that makes up the team. The project sponsor would be the doctors or the director or assistant director of nursing. The clinical leader would be the nursing supervisor. The technical expert could be infection control or a wound nurse depending on the reason for the team. The day-to-day leadership would be the nurses or other individuals who are in the thick of the day to day exchanges for whatever the quality improvement is.

There are many potential challenges when slaving quality issues through the development of a team. Not inviting the right person to join the team could lead to feelings of exclusion and a lack of desire to help make the change required for quality improvement. There could be personality conflicts within the team which would make the process not effective in trying to solve the issue because individuals could argue of every step of the way. The team may try to tackle something large all at once instead of trying to make the change a little at a time which allows for the best outcomes and for a more likely sustainability of the change (Nash, Joshi, Ransom, & Ransom, 2019). Taking in the opinions and experiences of everyone, regardless of their title, is important because many people bring great insights that others would never have thought of. Team work can be an effective way of creating quality change in an organization.

References

Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (n.d.). Science of Improvement: Forming the team. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/HowtoImprove/ScienceofImprovementFormingtheTeam.aspx

Nash, D. B., Joshi, M. S., Ransom, E. R., & Ransom, S. B. (Eds.). (2019). The healthcare quality book: Vision, strategy, and tools (4th ed.). Health Administration Press.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration. (n.d.) Improvement Teams. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/quality/toolbox/508pdfs/improvementteams.pdf

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

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.

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

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