NURS 8302 Discussion Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement

Walden University NURS 8302 Discussion Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement-Step-By-Step Guide

This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University NURS 8302 Discussion Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement 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 Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement

Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University NURS 8302 Discussion Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement 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 Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement

The introduction for the Walden University NURS 8302 Discussion Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement 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 Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement

After the introduction, move into the main part of the NURS 8302 Discussion Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement 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 Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement

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 Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement

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 Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement 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 Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement

Diabetes has become a national epidemic affecting about 29.1% of Americans, approximately 9.3% of the population (Shirivastav et al., 2018). Yet, an estimated 20 % remain undiagnosed, while the annual new case estimate is about 1.4 million (Shirivastav et al., 2018). In 2013, among patients seeking medical primary care visits, diabetes was the fifth-ranked primary diagnosis according to the centers for disease control and prevention center (2021). Hence, one can argue how essential primary care is to effectively screen, diagnose, and manage patients with type Two diabetes, realizing the implications of poor control, leading to disease progression to chronic complications such as microvascular and macrovascular diseases or possible life-threatening hypoglycemia.

According to the standards of diabetes care, controlling glucose improves Glyco hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels over time. Other factors associated with delaying complications are maintaining target blood pressure and lowering low-density cholesterol levels, which prevents chronic complications of diabetes. Therefore, primary care centers must make a concerted effort to adopt the national standards of care by developing a quality improvement program by identifying gaps to prevent poor patient outcomes leading to poor compliance. Examples of such gaps include poor glucose control goals in patients with type 2 diabetes as evidence by HbA1c not at goal rate, patients with diabetes not achieving target blood pressure goal of 130/80 and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels above the target rate (Kitson, & Straus, 2010).

The quality improvement gap I would like to address at my current clinic is improving HbA1c to goal range among patients above the target range. This facility has a quality improvement team comprising a nurse manager, behavioral health, nurses, Nurse practitioners, and medical assistants. Evidence-based standards of practice emphasize patients with HBA1c greater than 7% repeat testing within six weeks. Using the PDSA method by predicting a clear outcome of HbA1c of <7% (Taylor & Bircher, 2016).

Plan: Decide on one team member to send out appointment reminders to patients with HbA1c above target, would measure the time between the out-of-target HbA1c received, review appointment, and when they would introduce the change (Taylor & Bircher, 2016).

Next is the Do section here, when the team monitors if there is an increased workload for the nursing because of increased appointments and patient compliance. The study phase is after three to six months, data is collected and analyzed, and finally, the Act phase is where the team acts on the positive change determines (IHI. 2021). Additionally, in this action phase, the team can publish the PDSA findings for implementation in the clinic or adjust for further improvement. The second tool applicable to improving glycemic control is the lean six sigma which focuses on defects. I will use this method to develop a nursing workflow in facilitating intervention to improve glycemic control (Kollipara et al., 2021). Finally, utilizing these two quality measures will improve the identified gaps and enhance euglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes at the community-based clinic.

References:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Ambulatory care use and physician office visits. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/physician-visits.htm.

Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), (2021). http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/Quality-Improvement-Essentials-Toolkit.aspx

Kollipara, U, Rivera-Bernuy, M., Putra, J., Burks, J., Meyer, A., Ferguson, S., Nelson, C., Mutz, J., Mirfakhraee, S., Bajaj, P., Kermani, A, Fish, J. S., and Ali, S. (2021). Improving diabetes control using lean six sigma quality improvement in an endocrine clinic in a large accountable care organization. Clinical Diabetes. 39(1): 57-63.

Shrivastav, M., Gibson, W Jr., Shrivastav, R., Elzea, K., Khambatta, C., Sierra, J. A., and Vigersky, R. (2018). Type 2 diabetes management in primary care: The role of retrospective professional continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Spectrum 31(3): 279-287.

Kitson, A. and Straus, S. E. (2010). The knowledge-to-action cycle: identifying the gaps. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 182(2): E73–E77.

Taylor, B and Bircher, J. (2016). The quality improvement tool kit for diabetes. Diabetes and Primary Care. 18(6):254-266

What should be happening in practice? What is happening or observed in practice?

These two questions aid in identifying potential quality improvement practice gaps in nursing practice. If we know what should be happening does not match what is happening, we know we have a problem, or more accurately, a practice gap.

The difference between a desirable or achievable state of practice and current reality is referred to as a practice gap. Healthcare associated infections (HAIs), such as central line associated blood stream infections (CLABSIs) or catheter associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), are a common practice gap in today’s healthcare organizations (CAUTIs).

The ongoing identification of practice gaps is critical to quality improvement, and it entails identifying the current state, comparing it to the desired state, identifying the causes of the gaps in practice, and validating those gaps to develop an improvement process.

Consider any quality improvement practice gaps in your practice or organization for this Discussion. Consider what methods and/or tools for quality improvement might be useful in closing this practice gap. Consider how you might approach these challenges and what strategies you might employ as a future DNP-prepared nurse.

To Prepare:

Review the Learning Resources on tools and methods for quality improvement.
Reflect on a potential quality improvement practice gap, you have seen in your practice or organization, which you might consider using for your DNP project.
Consider the tools and methods you might use to address this quality improvement practice gap.

By Day 3 of Week 3

Post a brief explanation of how you would identify a quality improvement practice gap in your practice or organization. Describe a

potential quality improvement practice gap you might use for your DNP project, and explain why. Then, explain at least two types of tools and/or methods you might use to address this quality improvement practice gap, and explain why. Be specific and provide examples.

By Day 6 of Week 3

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 and suggesting alternative tools and/or methods your colleague might consider using to address the quality improvement practice gap they selected.

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 3 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 of Week 3 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 3

To Participate in this Discussion:

Week 3 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 Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement

Sample Answer 2 for NURS 8302 Discussion Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement

The methodology I would utilize to identify a quality improvement gap in my current organization is the hospitals’ scorecard on Hospital Compare. “The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency that runs the Medicare program, created this tool in collaboration with organizations representing people with Medicare, hospice organizations, other stakeholders, and other federal agencies”. (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, n. d.). CMS’s website, hospital compare, is a website that allows participants/caregivers/others, to identify providers based on the criteria most relevant to them. In reviewing my current organizations’ scorecard via hospital compare, the hospitals’ rate for 30- day inpatient psychiatric readmissions is 21.1%, while the national average is 20.1, which is not statistically significant. However, the percentage of patients included in this data (Medicare only), are minimal, compared to the total number of patients discharged from the inpatient psychiatric unit.

To be sure that this data was accurate, I compared this data to the same statistics reported by some of our other payors via the Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) program. This is a method of provider payments, directly related to the providers’ performance. More specifically, providers are held accountable for the quality of care they provide, which is directly related to the organizations’ reimbursement (HealthCare.gov, n. d.). My organization currently has VBP agreements with two payors. As reported by these payors, our 30-day readmission rate for the inpatient psych unit is significantly higher than the local/state/national average. Thus, this is an opportunity for our department to address.

The method I would choose to address this gap in practice is a retrospective chart review. This is a review of a medical record after a patient has been discharged from the hospital. It is the most comprehensive method of data collection related to patient care. Additionally, a retrospective chart review “is the primary tool for answering the “why” of a given situation” (Nash, Joshi, Ransom, E. & Ransom, S., 2019, pg. 114). Following a patients’ discharge, a thorough review of a patients’ chart could help to provide some detail regarding the patients’ discharge plan, wrap-around services in the community and other factors, or lack thereof, that may have contributed to the patients’ readmission.

After a thorough review of a sampling of patients’ charts, collecting data, I would use a fishbone diagram to assist in sorting the data, identifying potential causes for patients’ readmissions. The fishbone diagram organizes possible causes, in a format that’s visual for ease in understanding (Nash et al., 2019). Although the reasons for readmission may be very individualized, my goal would be to ensure that, as an organization, we provided patients with all of the tools required to be successfully discharged to the community. Overall, in a review of this data, the focus would be on psychiatric readmissions, but would also consider patient outcomes. “Management strategies to reduce readmissions may influence indicators of well-being such as psychiatric symptomatology, functional status, quality of life, social adjustment, self-efficacy, service satisfaction, life skills, medication adherence, and ability to live independently” (RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center, 2015, pg. 25). Improved quality of life is a goal for patients with severe and persistent mental illness.

References

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (n. d.). Hospital Compare. https://www.medicare.gov/care-compare/resources/about-this-tool

HealthCare.gov (n. d.). Value-Based Purchasing. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/value-based-purchasing-vbp/

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

RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center (2015). Effective health care program: Management strategies to reduce psychiatric readmissions. Technical Brief Number 21. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/psychiatric-readmissions_technical-brief.pdf

Sample Answer 3 for NURS 8302 Discussion Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement

This is an outstanding work Andretta. The methodologies of identifying quality improvement gap in health care organization have been clearly identified. I concur with your post. Ideally, identification of quality improvement gap should be followed by addressing the gap and determination of quality of the service. However, evaluating the perceptions and expectations of patients concerning health care delivery and areas that need improvement remains a great challenge (Javed & Ilyas, 2018). Usually, surveys have been used to understand quality improvement gaps from the perspective of the patients and other stakeholders. However, another important methodology that organizations and providers can use is to compare the perceived and the expected quality of service and identify the gaps between them, utilize the feedback from the stakeholders to enhance quality, and evaluate the real experiences of health care (Lu et al., 2020). As service quality is increasingly becoming a critical aspect of corporate strategy in health care system, an approach of measuring the perception and understanding the gap between perception and expectation can be important in quality improvement initiatives (Dopeykar et al., 2018).

References

Dopeykar, N., Bahadori, M., Mehdizadeh, P., Ravangard, R., Salesi, M., & Hosseini, S. M. (2018). Assessing the quality of dental services using SERVQUAL model. Dental Research Journal, 15(6), 430. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6243813/

Javed, S. A., & Ilyas, F. (2018). Service quality and satisfaction in healthcare sector of Pakistan—the patients’ expectations. International journal of health care quality assurance. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-08-2016-0110

Lu, S. J., Kao, H. O., Chang, B. L., Gong, S. I., Liu, S. M., Ku, S. C., & Jerng, J. S. (2020). Identification of quality gaps in healthcare services using the SERVQUAL instrument and importance-performance analysis in medical intensive care: a prospective study at a medical center in Taiwan. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05764-8

Sample Answer 4 for NURS 8302 Discussion Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement

A Brief Explanation of How to Identify Quality Gaps in My Organization: Quality gap in healthcare is the difference between the actual quality of care being provided and the desired or expected quality. In other words, quality gap is the discrepancy between expected best practices and actual care. These gaps can occur in various aspects of healthcare, such as patient safety, effectiveness of treatments, patient experience, and access to care (Lu et al., 2020). The first step to identifying quality gap in healthcare is to define, measure, and analyze the issue at hand. To identify the quality gap in my organization, I can look at the key performance indicators (KPIs) and metrics related to quality. This includes, but is not limited to, retention, patient satisfaction scores, readmission rates, infection rates, and medication errors (Majeed et al., 2007).

Potential Quality Improvement Practice Gap for the DNP Project: One of the potential quality practice gaps for a DNP project is identifying leadership strategies to address nursing shortages. Addressing the nursing shortage as a leader is a critical issue in healthcare today because the global impact is tremendous. Nursing shortage affects more than one billion people, particularly vulnerable groups such as women and children who desperately need adequate healthcare services. The insufficient supply of nurses has significantly impacted the patient’s health-related outcomes, as well as challenges in fighting diseases and improving health. It has also caused increased workload and stress levels on nurses, decreasing nursing care quality, threatening patient safety, and increasing patient mortality (Tamata et al., 2023). By focusing on leadership strategies, a DNP project can explore ways to attract, retain, and support nurses and optimize their productivity and job satisfaction.

Tools and Methods to Address Quality Improvement Gap: There are several tools and methods that can be used to address nurses’ shortages. The two practical approaches are the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle and the Root Cause Analysis (RCA). The PDSA approach involves identifying the problem, formulating hypotheses, designing interventions and changes, implementing the changes on a small scale, and collecting data. The collected data is analyzed and evaluated, and adjustments are made based on the findings. The PDSA cycle enables nurse leaders to test changes methodically, assess progress, and make informed decisions based on evidence and data (Reed et al., 2016). Similarly, the RCA helps better understand the root causes of the nursing shortage and develop targeted interventions by first identifying the problem, gathering data, identifying the possible causes, determining the root causes, developing solutions, and monitoring and evaluating results. RCA enables nurse leaders to investigate the root causes of a quality gap, resulting in focused interventions and long-term solutions (Charles et al., 2016).

To conclude, addressing the nursing shortage as a quality gap is a game-changer. By focusing on the PDSA and RCA tools for addressing the nursing shortage, healthcare leaders can make a real difference in the quality of care and the nursing workforce.

Reference

Charles, R., Hood, B., Derosier, J. M., Gosbee, J. W., Li, Y., Caird, M. S., Biermann, J. S., & Hake, M. E. (2016, September 21). How to Perform a Root Cause Analysis for Workup and Future Prevention of Medical Errors: A Review. Patient safety in surgery https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5031337/Links to an external site.

Lu, S.-J., Kao, H.-O., Chang, B.-L., Gong, S.-I., Liu, S.-M., Ku, S.-C., & Jerng, J.-S. (2020, September 29). Identifying quality gaps in healthcare services using the SERVQUAL instrument and importance-performance analysis in medical intensive care: A prospective study at a medical center in Taiwan. BMC Health Services Research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7523493/Links to an external site.

Majeed, A., Lester, H., & Bindman, A. B. (2007, November 3). Improving the quality of care with performance indicators. BMJ (Clinical Research, ed.): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2048880/Links to an external site.

Tamata, A. T., & Mohammadnezhad, M. (2023, March). A systematic review study on the factors affecting the shortage of nursing workforce in hospitals. Nursing open. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9912424/Links to an external site.

Reed, J. E., Davey, N., & Woodcock, T. (2016, October). The foundations of quality improvement science. Future hospital journal: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6465814/Links to an external site.

Sample Answer 5 for NURS 8302 Discussion Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement

Practice gaps are the differences that exist between the current state of practice and its intended state. Practice gaps are a helpful tool for identifying issues in the workplace, mainly when performance is falling short of expectations in a healthcare environment (Flodgren et al., 2019). To ensure that the current state of healthcare practice meets or surpasses the expected practice, quality improvement projects can be constructed upon evaluating practice gaps (Robinson et al., 2020). Since they support advancements in critical areas of healthcare practice, like knowledge, skills, and practice, evaluating practice gaps and the ensuing quality improvement initiatives are crucial (Joshi et al., 2018).

Explanation of How I Would Identify Improvement Practice Gap in My Practice Organization

Practice gaps, as previously stated, represent the discrepancy between what is occurring in practice at the moment and what evidence-based practices recommend should be occurring (Flodgren et al., 2019). Finding practice gaps is a crucial first step toward improving healthcare since it serves as the basis for initiatives aimed at improving quality. Gap analysis is one method of detecting practice gaps. To determine where the deviation is, a gap analysis evaluates current processes and compares them to best practices. A gap analysis describes the discrepancy between what is occurring and what ought to occur, which helps identify a practice gap (Joshi et al., 2018). Utilizing data and research findings is another method for identifying gaps in practice. By comparing best practices with existing practices, one can better discover practice gaps by understanding best practices, which is made possible by research findings (Michel et al., 2019). Among other sources, quality improvement statistics, literature reviews on a range of subjects, national clinical recommendations, patient care audits, and current healthcare trends can all be used to identify research findings (Joshi et al., 2018). A variety of data and information sources, including expert and faculty feedback, participant feedback (including needs assessment results and past CME evaluations), and participant feedback, can also be used to guide the comparison of current practice with best practice to identify practice gaps (Robinson et al., 2020). Practice gaps can also be found through data from the several regulatory agencies that oversee different professions. Understanding how current practice differs from best practice and identifying practice gaps might result from knowledge gathered from pertinent boards and state requirements (Michel et al., 2019).

Potential Quality Improvement Practice Gap that Can Be Use for My DNP Project

Medication administration errors are one possible quality improvement practice gap I might employ for my DNP project. By guaranteeing that healthcare services are safe, effective, timely, equitable, efficient, and patient-centered, a quality improvement project to reduce pharmaceutical errors would improve patient outcomes (Hammoudi et al., 2018). The complexity of pharmaceutical safety is the rationale behind the decision to address this practice gap. Medication prescription and administration are intricate procedures with many potential for error. Medication errors are not only quite likely to occur but also harm patients’ health and general well-being. Therefore, it is imperative to develop a less error-prone system to guarantee that the appropriate drugs are administered to the appropriate patients at the appropriate time (Hammoudi et al., 2018). In addition to improving patient outcomes, this would promote patients’ safety, health, and general well-being. The five rights of medicine administration—the appropriate patient, the proper medication, the right time, the proper dosage, and the correct route—can all lead to pharmaceutical errors (Hammoudi et al., 2018). However, there are times when more than one person ensures these five rights are upheld. Various healthcare experts must be involved in prescribing and administering medications (Jember et al., 2018). System modifications are required to guarantee that the five rights are upheld during the prescription and administration of drugs. It is imperative to address systemic problems, such as system misconfiguration, diversions, lengthy processes, and inadequate training of healthcare staff, that may lead to prescription errors. The quality improvement project aims to develop a pharmaceutical error prevention, mitigation, and reduction system that improves patient safety and healthcare outcomes (Hammoudi et al., 2018).

Two Types of Tools/Methods that I Might Use to Address Quality Improvement Practice Gap

The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) paradigm can be used in quality improvement projects and research endeavors that seek to positively impact healthcare procedures to achieve desired results. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement has made extensive use of this technique for quick cycle improvement (Joshi et al., 2018). The cyclical nature of affecting and evaluating change is one of this model’s distinctive aspects results (Christoff, 2018). Quality improvement projects are thoroughly vetted to ensure that they achieve the intended goal. It is best achieved by periodic, small-scale PDSAs rather than large, slow ones before system-wide changes are implemented. Establishing a functional or causal relationship between changes in processes (more especially, behaviors and skills) and results is the goal of PDSA quality improvement initiatives. Before applying the PDSA cycles, Langley and colleagues put forward the following three questions: What is the project’s aim? How will it be determined if the objective was accomplished? and (3) How will the objective be attained? The first steps in the PDSA cycle are to identify the type and extent of the issue, the changes that may and should be made, the specific change that needs to be planned, the people who should be involved, the things that should be measured to gauge the change’s impact, and the target audience for the strategy. After that, facts and information are gathered and changes are put into practice. Several important metrics that show success or failure are reviewed to evaluate and interpret the implementation study’s results. Finally, the results are put into practice by either starting the process over or executing the modification.

The VA’s National Center for Patient Safety created the health failure modes and effects analysis (HFMEA) tool for risk assessment. In HFMEA, there are five steps: first, establish the topic; second, put together the team; third, create a process map for the topic, numbering each step and substep in turn; and fourth, carry out a hazard analysis (e.g., determine the reason behind failure modes, assign a score to each failure mode using the hazard scoring matrix, and go through the decision tree analysis) formulate plans of action and goals. When performing a hazard analysis, it is crucial to enumerate all probable and actual failure modes for every process, assess if the failure modes call for additional action, and enumerate all causes for each failure mode when it is decided to move forward. Following the hazard analysis, evaluating the necessary steps and result measurements is critical. This includes outlining what will be removed or regulated and assigning accountability for each new action.

Conclusion

Practice gaps denote a difference between what should be happening in practice and what is currently happening (Flodgren et al., 2019) The identification of practice gaps is an essential building block to advance healthcare as it helps form the foundation for quality improvement projects. One way to identify practice gaps is through gap analysis. A gap analysis includes the evaluation of current practices and compares the same to best practices where the deviation is. A gap analysis informs the identification of a practice gap by outlining the difference between what is happening and what should be happening. One potential quality improvement practice gap that I would look to address is medication errors. The prescription and subsequent administration of medication is a complex process with various points of error. In addition to the high risk for errors, the occurrence of medication errors is detrimental to the patients and adversely affects their health and well-being (Hammoudi et al., 2018) As such, it is critical to come up with a system that is less prone to errors to ensure that the right medications are given to the right patients at the right time (Jember et al., 2018).

References

Christoff, P. (2018). Running PDSA cycles.Current problems in pediatric and adolescent health care,48(8), 198-201.

Flodgren, G., O’Brien, M. A., Parmelli, E., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2019). Local opinion leaders:effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (6).

Hammoudi, B. M., Ismail, S., & Abu Yahya, O. (2018). Factors associated with medication administration errors and why nurses fail to report them.Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences,32(3), 1038-1046.

Jember, A., Hailu, M., Messele, A., Demeke, T., & Hassen, M. (2018). The proportion of medication error reporting and associated factors among nurses: a cross-sectional study.BMC Nursing,17(1), 1-8.

Joshi, M., Ransom, E. R., Nash, D. B., & Ransom, S. B. (Eds.). (2014). The healthcare quality book: vision, strategy, and Tools. Chicago, IL, USA:: Health Administration Press.

Michel, J., Chimbindi, N., Mohlakoana, N., Orgill, M., Bärnighausen, T., Obrist, B., … & Tanner, M. (2019). How and why policy-practice gaps come about: a South African Universal Health Coverage context.Journal of Global Health Reports,3, e2019069.

Robinson, T., Bailey, C., Morris, H., Burns, P., Melder, A., Croft, C., … & Teede, H. (2020).Bridging the research-practice gap in healthcare: a rapid review of research translation centers in England and Australia.Health research policy and systems,181-17.

Content

Name: NURS_8302_Week3_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