NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative

NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative

Walden University NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative-Step-By-Step Guide

 

This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative 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 Quality Improvement Initiative

 

Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative 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 Quality Improvement Initiative

The introduction for the Walden University NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative 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 Quality Improvement Initiative

 

After the introduction, move into the main part of the NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative 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 Quality Improvement Initiative

 

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 Quality Improvement Initiative

 

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 Quality Improvement Initiative 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 Quality Improvement Initiative

Healthcare organizations are constantly engaging in performance improvement initiatives with the aim of improving the patients’ experiences and outcomes. Quality care delivery results in quick recovery to the patients as well as reduced medical costs because of the reduced hospital stay period. Quality improvement initiatives focus on measuring the patients’ outcomes and develop new strategies to address the existing gaps and improve the efficiency of the healthcare delivery processes (Joshi, Ransom, Nash, & Ransom, 2014). Various quality indicators are considered in the improved process, and they include reduced hospital readmissions, proper waste management and disposal, patients’ data management and reducing the turnaround time. Proper data management is an important quality indicator that many hospitals focus on currently. In as much as there are other quality indicators, data management has been prioritized in the hospital set-up and thus will be the main focus of analysis in the paper.

Quality Improvement Initiative

As mentioned, the present health care setting focuses on data management as its quality improvement initiative. This focus has occurred in cognizance of the essence of having proper data management system given the technological pervasion of the health care industry. Poor data management results in communication errors between the healthcare providers, and prolonged patients’ stay in the hospital due to data unavailability. Indeed, Clarke and Persaud (2011) have implied that the absence of proper data management structures have led to the existence of certain adverse events in health care. Therefore, improving the patients’ data management is essential in the realization of high quality delivery of health care services. Patients’ data are collected from the time they get to the outpatient department. Hence, this data should be made readily available for proper management of the patients until the time they leave the hospital. Also, such records should be kept for easy monitoring and follow-up of patients with chronic diseases.

Furthermore, proper data management means that healthcare providers in a hospital institution. The senior leader in the institution works to ensure that the patient’s flow is improved and enhance the coordination among the various healthcare providers as advised by Clarke and Persaud (2011). Proper data management helps in easy sharing of vital information among healthcare providers and thus reducing patients’ movements within the hospital may help reduce their predisposition to hospital-acquired infections.

Adverse Events

Furthermore, incidences of medical errors such as medication errors have increased. According to M. Ransom, S. Ransom, and Nash (2014), these incidences are majorly caused by wrong data entry or poor management and storage of the patients’ data among other factors. Therefore, addressing the problems caused by poor data management would facilitate the realization of quality care delivery and improve patients’ experiences significantly. Having considered all these factors, the institution leaders were convinced enough to prioritize this quality improvement initiative. Unpredictable discharge and prolonged delays in the discharge process are major roadblocks to the realization of efficient patient flow. Improving the discharge process can only be achieved first by ensuring the patients’ data can be easily retrieved, and billing is done promptly. Furthermore, the nurses can easily monitor their patients and determine whether they are ready for discharge through an efficient health information management system.

Moreover, the management ensures the existence of an organizational culture that has familiarity with the tools of data management quality improvement. These ensures that the responsible hospital staff understand their roles properly with regards to the collection and dissemination of collected data for purposes of improving the quality of care. Further, an implementation of a systematic data collection methodology ensued when an adverse health event occurred at the setting. The uniformity evidenced in the categories of data collected by the hospital ensures that accuracy is maintained and validity of the data is guaranteed in consistence with M. Ransom, S. Ransom, and Nash (2014) assertion. By doing this, the hospital has proactively implemented internal mechanisms to address the issue of adverse events hence improvement of quality.

Scholarly Article

Adverse events have received significant coverage in both scholarly and public press spaces. Medication errors forms one of the most highly discussed issues as regards this phenomenon. Keers, Williams, Cooke, and Ashcroft (2013) conducted a scholarly analysis of medication errors and the attendant underlying system factors that have led to the existence of such errors. The article highlighted issues such as lapses and slips, deliberate violations, and knowledge-based mistakes as the main culprits in the existence of these errors. Moreover, inadequate written communication, high perceived workload, pharmacy dispensing errors also contribute to medication errors (Keers et al., 2013). Indeed, when an evaluation was conducted in my present health care setting concerning the causes of medication errors, some consistency with the factors outlined by the above authors occurred. The hospital discovered that staffing shortage leading to increased workload as well as pharmacy dispensing errors majorly contributed to these errors at the hospital.

Conclusion

 Therefore, hospitals constantly grapple with adverse events issues. As a result, they adopt multifarious quality improvement initiatives to ensure high-quality delivery of services to patients. These undertakings lead to mitigation of these adverse events thus resulting in improved perception of facilities by patients. Scholars as well as public press have also addressed the issues of medical adverse events. The exposure offered by these media permit health care settings to constantly work towards eliminating them hence improving the quality of their services.

Your organization has recently discovered there have been too frequent errors in medication distribution. After launching an investigation in the matter, and discovering the reasons for the errors, your organization is ready to launch a quality improvement initiative. What might this initiative entail?  What is included, and how will it assist in eliminating these errors?

Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

The purpose of the Quality Improvement (QI) Plan is to provide a formal ongoing process by which the organization and stakeholders utilize objective measures to monitor and evaluate the quality of services—both clinical and operational—provided to the patients. The QI Plan, which often addresses general medical behavioral health and oral healthcare and services, defines and facilitates a systematic approach to identify and pursue opportunities to improve services and resolve identified problems (Health Resources and Services Administration, 2011).

For this Discussion, review the Learning Resources. Then, reflect on how adverse events impact your organization and/or nursing practice. Consider the use of quality improvement initiative in the error rate, using scholarly articles to analyze.

_{Reference:
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration. (2011). Developing and implementing a QI plan. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/quality/toolbox/508pdfs/developingqiplan.pdf} 

To Prepare:

• Review the Learning Resources for this week, and reflect on the types of quality improvement (QI) initiatives that might be mostrelevant to your healthcare organization or nursing practice.
• Select a QI initiative, you are most familiar with, that has received support from your senior leaders in your healthcare organization or nursing practice.
• Consider how adverse events are handled in your healthcare organization or nursing practice. Reflect on how this may impact the public—as well as the internal—perspective on healthcare quality.
• Find a scholarly article or one from the public press, published within the last 5 years, that recounts a serious error. Reflect on this error, and consider how it may relate to your healthcare organization or nursing practice.

By Day 3 of Week 6

Post a brief explanation of the QI initiative you selected, and why. Be specific. Explain how adverse events are handled in your healthcare organization or nursing practice, including an explanation of how this may impact both public and internal perspectives on healthcare quality. Then, briefly describe the error rate from the article you selected, and explain how this may relate to your healthcare organization or nursing practice. Be specific and provide examples.

By Day 6 of Week 6

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 interpretation of the error rate 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 6 Discussion Rubric

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

To Participate in this Discussion:

Week 6 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 Quality Improvement Initiative

Sample Answer 2 for NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative

Quality improvement aims to understand the complex healthcare environment, apply a systematic approach, and design, test, and implement modifications using real-time measurement to improve safety, effectiveness, and care experience (Jones et al., 2019). It is an opportunity to address concerns about how care processes and systems are delivered. Quality improvement (QI) is a team activity that collaborates with other disciplines, including patients, to improve care processes (Jones et al., 2019).  Done well, QI is a valuable process, enabling clinicians to deliver actual change to benefit themselves, their organizations, and their patients (Jones et al., 2019). This week’s discussion will focus on a quality improvement initiative, how adverse events are handled at my organization and impact public and internal perspectives on healthcare quality, and review a scholarly article where a serious error occurred and how this may relate to my organization.

QI Initiative Selected 

I have been the co-chair of the Fall Prevention Quality Improvement Team for the network for several years. My co-chair and  I have led many fall prevention initiatives, including Dr. Patricia Quigley and Dr. Amy Hester’s (Hester Davis Scale for fall risk assessment) on-site visits to educate the network on fall prevention. I am fortunate to have met both fall prevention experts.

The QI initiative selected is a Fall Prevention Agreement to reduce fall events. I chose this QI initiative because I am passionate about fall prevention. This QI initiative was initially a Nurse Residency evidence-based project in 2018 and then expanded network-wide. Most patients are unaware of their fall risk. The Fall Prevention Agreement provides a standard format for communication between nursing staff and the patient, increasing patients’ knowledge of their fall risk factors. It is a two-sided agreement with specific fall prevention interventions and things the patient can do to prevent a fall. The nurse reviews the Fall Prevention Agreement on admission, and then after review, the patient and nurse sign/date the agreement. It is scanned into the electronic health record, being a permanent part of the electronic health record.

Adverse Events in My Healthcare Organizations 

My organization supports a just culture where colleagues are encouraged to do the right thing. It is a culture that promotes reporting and open discussion when adverse events occur. The aim is to avoid similar adverse events. Frontline staff is included in root cause analysis meetings to learn and discuss adverse events, identify opportunities for improvement, and implement action items to improve safety and quality of care. Research has shown that in units where feedback about adverse events is routinely given, staff have positive views on patient safety and are more apt to report adverse events (Liukka et al., 2017).

Leadership and the organizational structure play a vital role in developing and implementing QI plans (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration, 2011). In my organization, senior leadership acknowledges the importance of discussing adverse events and encouraging frontline staff involvement in decision-making and policy development, positively impacting public and internal healthcare quality perspectives. I believe it is crucial to include frontline staff to gain a firsthand perspective on potential solutions. When firsthand perspectives are not discussed in the aspects of QI planning, the QI initiative may fail.

Published Scholarly Article that Recounts a Serious Error

Medication reconciliation is an essential component of patient safety. The scholarly article I selected refers to a 71-year old female who accidentally received Navane, an antipsychotic medication, instead of her anti-hypertensive drug Norvasc for three months (da Silva & Krishnamurthy, 2016). She sustained physical and psychological harm, including ambulatory dysfunction, tremors, mood swings, and personality changes (da Silva & Krishnamurthy, 2016). Unfortunately, multiple healthcare providers overlooked her symptoms (da Silva & Krishnamurthy, 2016). Errors occurred at numerous levels, including prescribing, pharmacy dispensation, hospitalization, and outpatient follow-up. (da Silva & Krishnamurthy, 2016). The outpatient pharmacy accidentally dispensed Navan instead of Norvasc (da Silva & Krishnamurthy, 2016). Navane/Norvasc is one of many sound-alikes, look-alike drug names (da Silva & Krishnamurthy, 2016). “It is believed that preventable medication errors impact more than seven million patients and cost almost $21 billion annually across all care settings” (da Silva & Krishnamurthy, 2016, p. 1).

Related to My Healthcare Organization

Unfortunately, this alarming medication error can occur in any healthcare organization. At my organization, medications added to the formulary are evaluated for a look-alike, sound-alike potential with other products, and then appropriate safeguard education to staff. Look-alike and sound-alike medications are stored in red bins and different locations in the pharmacy. The regularly updated list appears in the policy manual and the pharmacy website. When possible, the electronic medical record system will place a warning comment and tall man letterings such as DOPAmine and DOBUTamine. My organization has developed a series of procedures to identify look-alike and sound-alike medications to prevent medication errors from these mix-ups. Medication errors are low but still occur. By creating a culture of teamwork and communication, we learn from our mistakes and aim to decrease preventable medication errors.

 

References

da Silva, B. A., & Krishnamurthy, M. (2016). The alarming reality of medication error: A patient case and review of Pennsylvania and national data. Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives, 6(4), 31758. https://doi.org/10.3402/jchimp.v6.31758

Jones, B., Vaux, E., & Olsson-Brown, A. (2019). How to get started in quality improvement. BMJ, k5408. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5437

Liukka, M., Hupli, M., & Turunen, H. (2017). How transformational leadership appears in action with adverse events? A study for finnish nurse manager. Journal of Nursing Management, 26(6), 639–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12592

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration. (2011). Developing and implementing a QI plan. Retrieved October 3, 2021, from https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/quality/toolbox/508pdfs/developingqiplan.p

Sample Answer 3 for NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative

Multi-morbidity relates to the presence of two more long-term health issues. These involve defined physical and mental health issues including schizophrenia or diabetes or ongoing health problems such as learning disability. The problem of multi-morbidity has increased in the recent past leading to an increased impact on individuals and their families, health systems, and society (Skou et al., 2022). It is a problem that needs addressing due to its increased prevalence. For instance, in the United States, it is estimated that 42% of the population aged 18 and older have multi-morbidity (Schiltz, 2022). These individuals have increased mortality rates, reduced health-related quality of life, potential poor health outcomes, and increased healthcare use. It is possible for healthcare professionals to help these individuals with a centralized medical records repository that aids in data analysis and visualization. Research conducted by Heins et al. (2020) shows that EHR can help in identifying patients with multi-morbidity and as a result help with their needs.

References

Heins, M., Korevaar, J., Schellevis, F., & Rijken, M. (2020). Identifying multimorbid patients with high care needs – A study based on Electronic Medical Record Data. European Journal of General Practice, 26(1), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2020.1854719Links to an external site.

Schiltz, N. K. (2022). Prevalence of Multimorbidity Combinations and Their Association with Medical Costs and Poor Health: A Population-Based Study of U.S. Adults. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.18.22269483Links to an external site.

Skou, S. T., Mair, F. S., Fortin, M., Guthrie, B., Nunes, B. P., Miranda, J. J., Boyd, C. M., Pati, S., Mtenga, S., & Smith, S. M. (2022). Multimorbidity. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-022-00376-4Links to an external site.

Sample Answer 4 for NURS 8302 Discussion Quality Improvement Initiative

In health care systems, the need to address safe patient care necessitates various management responses with regard to the problem in question. Quality improvement initiatives (QI) are actions undertaken by the stakeholders in a health care facility to bridge the gaps in realizing the goals of service delivery (Sadegh et al., 2013). The premise can also entail the implementation of innovative approaches to model and design various strategies aimed at addressing complex care interventions. According to Cullen (2018), assessing quality improvement initiatives is important to measure the performance of a health system to enhance the safety of patients seeking care services. In the institutions of care, quality improvement initiatives also entail an evaluation of the staff capacity and the availability of resources to handle populations seeking medical attention (Mikhail & Langabeer, 2018). Often, nursing population can be used as the yardstick to assess the quality of care since they spend the longest period with the patients (Hickey & Brosnan, 2017).    Thus, the context of safe staffing with respect to nurse-to-patient ratios needs to receive attention.

Selected Quality Measures Identification

Safe nurse-to-patient ratio is a quality initiative that most hospital leaders take into account in a bid to ensure quality care for patients. Health facility administrators often formulate strategies that address safe, effective and efficient approaches that guarantee quality care to patients. Hill and DeWitt (2018) illustrate that one of the most important approaches is to recruit adequate nursing staff and other care professionals to address patient acuity. Certainly, an interplay of many factors concerning nurse-patient ratios has often hampered the efforts to bridge the staffing gap. In many cases, care facilities lack adequate financial resources to implement nursing staff (Shekelle, 2013). Besides, access to competent and experienced nursing staff is a challenge due to the shortage of specialist nurses.

In this regard, the present article delves into the quality measures related to safe nurse-patient ratios in care setting. The premise is guided by the argument that patient-centered outcomes are compromised by inadequate nursing staff. The present nursing staff in care facilities is also overwhelmed by the high patient population. The occasion of unsafe nurse staffing is also exacerbated by the high rate of nurse turnover most of whom seek further studies or opt for institutions that offer better remuneration packages. According to Shekelle (2013), the recommended rate for nurse to patient ratio is at 1:4. However, the present health facility indicates a ratio of 1:8, which is far below the required standards. The high nurse to patient ratio is detrimental to both the institution and the clients seeking care services. It results to missed care due to untimely administration of medication and poor pain management (Sadegh et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2017). A project on nurse staffing entails addressing nursing skill mix in addition to a response on care hours as a way to look into the working patterns of nurses. Thus, the health facility can also focus on attracting high-quality nurses through redesigning the practice environment to improve patient safety.

Data Collection Plan

Data collection plan is an important aspect and a straight forward approach to indicate the patterns of nurse staffing in a care facility. The collected data will reflect aspects of patient care, particularly concerning prompt care, increase in falls, bed sores, and other infections (Hickey & Brosnan, 2017). Data on safe nurse to patient ratios can be collected through different approaches and comprises five steps.

The first step entails identifying the perceived speculated results on nurse staffing results and the ways to measure their actual number. The second step relates to developing a data gathering approach to ascertain the problem of the unsafe nurse to patient ratios in a care facility. The third step involves the analysis of the data collected in a bid to reflect on the nurse staffing deficits with respect to patient population seeking health services at the institution. Step four, on the other hand, entails relating the data collected to establish the extent of an inadequate number of nurses when compared to the patient population seeking medical attention. In the final step, the four steps are repeated to ensure the accuracy of the information collected. This also provides information that can be used to compare data from known databases to reflect the pattern of the nurse to patient ratio with recommended standards.

The manual data collection plan will be determined by observing the lifestyle, body and the environment of patient care. This provides qualitative data to gauge on adequate or poor staffing nursing patterns in a care facility (Hickey & Brosnan, 2017). It can be deduced that the behavior and the overall outlook of patients depend on the decisions they make from the information they receive as per the advice of nurses. In the event of inadequate personnel, the quality of life of patients is likely to be compromised due to insufficient education on self-care (Hill & DeWitt, 2018). The environment of care can also be altered and expose patients to hospital-acquired infections as opposed to when there is adequate nursing staff.

The data collection plan is also based on the analysis of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). The latter denotes a case-mix of patients which categorizes clients as per their diagnoses, demographic characteristics, and treatments administered to them. In a nutshell, the DRGs provide data on the number of doctors, nurses and medical products used to offer given care to patients (Woo, Milworm & Dowding, 2017). Further, the DRGs provides feasible data on the number of care providers required to support prompt as well as quality care. The project on safe nurse-patient ratios will rely on the data from DRGs to provide a measure and indicators on the minimum number of nurse staffing ratios that can affect the quality of patient care in a given facility.

Nurse’s Role in Correct Data Collection

Nurses are integral in providing information related to patient safety in a care facility. The professionals avail data that can be used in the analysis of staffing by acuity indicators. In other words, nurses are the health professionals that have close proximity to patients, and as such, they provide actual information on the number of patients under their care. They can inform hospital administrators if the number of patients they attend to are more or less based on their ability to provide the service. Acuity in a care setting is ranked as per the severity of illness rated based on minor to major and extreme conditions. A nurse ratio of 1:4 is the recommended scale to solve thrilling severity of patient conditions. The measure indicates the level of flexibility of a hospital to provide care to patients with complicated illnesses. Studies by Hill and DeWitt (2018) and Lee et al. (2017) affirm that nurse leaders and advanced registered nurses use aggregate data to measure as well as monitor the trends in quality care to patients. The information gathered is incorporated into data collected from administrative and multiple clinical databases from the facility, which will further be used to analyze the trends or to support research in the given health facility.

Professional, Ethical, and Regulatory Standards Implementation

The project implementation requires quality improvement actions based on the ethical and regulatory standards of nurse staffing. Related standards and criteria need to conform to the federal regulations on a number of health professionals required in care facilities (Woo, Milworm & Dowding, 2017). The safe nurse-to-patient ratios program as well addressing the number of licensed registered nurses and practical nurses that conforms to the regulatory requirement of health facilities of a state become necessary. The effectiveness of a quality improvement initiative depends on the employment of nurses with competency in their area of specialty to optimize patient outcomes (Mikhail & Langabeer, 2018). However, confidentiality of the sensitive information reported by nurses on the administrative practices of a given facility must be guaranteed as a remedy to victimization.

The American Nurse Association (ANA) recommends specific rates of nurse-to-patient ratios in different departments of a health facility. In the critical unit, a ratio of 1:2 is recommended while at the emergency department the regulatory body expects 1:4. Further research by Lee et al. (2017) suggests that the standard criteria of the ANA guide on the implementation of the quality initiative. The stipulated recommended ratios will guide nurse staffing.

Communication to Stakeholders

Implementation of the quality improvement initiative can be well achieved through effective communication to stakeholders. The initial process will require the provision of accurate and adequate information for justification on the implementation of safe nurse-to-patient ratios (Wong, 2015). Stakeholders will be informed on the current state of the nurse-to-patient ratios so that they evaluate the need for quality improvement. As part of the quality improvement team, I will schedule a meeting with the stakeholders where the facts and figures related to the safe patient care will be availed. I will also collect feedback from key stakeholders regarding the program and compile a report that will steer the implementation process.

Interprofessional Collaboration

The implementation of the safe nurse-to-patient ratios will depend on the leadership skills emulated by the stakeholders in the given health facility. According to Laureani, Brady and Antony (2013), nurse leaders and the project management team must display leadership skills to inspire other nurses as they strive to improve patient care. Besides, the leaders need to create a staffing plan that aims to respond to unpredictable nursing turnover as part of the improvement initiative to address patient acuity. The stakeholders will also be expected to communicate progress to all team members and highlight areas where the program should be given priority (Laureani, Brady & Antony, 2013). However, as part of stakeholder engagement, leaders must portray interprofessional collaboration so that the program is accepted within the care facility. Cullen (2018) posits that successful implementation of the program depends on how the leaders define the financial requirement, emulate time management skills and address potential challenges that might impede achievement of safe patient care.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the need to improve quality in healthcare necessitates the introduction of systematic approaches to prioritize on actions required for care delivery. Safe nurse staffing in health facilities is essential in improving the well-being of patients. However, in addressing the nurse staff deficit, the stakeholders will need to employ skilled and competent professionals. Further, it will be vital to assess the acuity in the selected hospital and allocate nurses based on the severity of patients’ illnesses. All these approaches are aimed at minimizing medication errors as well as to improve the quality of health outcomes.

References

Cullen, L. (2018). Translating EBP into the Reality of Daily Practice: Leadership Solutions for Creating a Path Forward. Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing, 33(5), 752-756.

Hickey, J. V., & Brosnan, C. A. (2017). Evaluation of health care quality in for DNPs (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Hill, M., & DeWitt, J. (2018). Staffing Is More Than a Number: Using Workflow to Determine an Appropriate Nurse Staffing Ratio in a Tertiary Care Neurocritical Care Unit. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 50(5), 268-272.

Laureani, A., Brady, M., & Antony, J. (2013). Applications of lean six sigma in an Irish hospital. Leadership in health services, 26(4), 322-337.

Lee, A., Cheung, Y. S. L., Joynt, G. M., Leung, C. C. H., Wong, W. T., & Gomersall, C. D. (2017). Are high nurse workload/staffing ratios associated with decreased survival in critically ill patients? A cohort study. Annals of intensive care, 7(1), 46.

Mikhail, O., & Langabeer, J. (2018). Strategy and Performance Management. In Performance Improvement in Hospitals and Health Systems (pp. 39-60). New York, NY: Productivity Press.

Sadeghi, S., Barzi, A., Mikhail, O., & Shabot, M. M. (2013). Integrating quality and strategy in health care organizations. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Shekelle, P. G. (2013). Nurse-patient ratios as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(5_Part_2), 404-409.

Wong, P. S. P. (2015). To learn or not to learn from project monitoring feedback: In search of explanations for the contractor’s dichromatic responses. In The Soft Power of Construction Contracting Organisations (pp. 141-164).

Woo, K., Milworm, G., & Dowding, D. (2017). Characteristics of Quality Improvement Champions in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review With Implications for Evidence‐Based Practice. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 14(6), 440-446.

Content

Name: NURS_8302_Week6_Discussion_Rubric

• Grid View
• List View

		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