Organizational Policies and Practices to Support Healthcare Issues

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW:

1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM

2). ATLEAST 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS

3). PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED RUBRIC DETAILS. 

Thank you.  

Quite often, nurse leaders are faced with ethical dilemmas, such as those associated with choices between competing needs and limited resources. Resources are finite, and competition for those resources occurs daily in all organizations.

For example, the use of 12-hour shifts has been a strategy to retain nurses. However, evidence suggests that as nurses work more hours in a shift, they commit more errors. How do effective leaders find a balance between the needs of the organization and the needs of ensuring quality, effective, and safe patient care?

In this Discussion, you will reflect on a national healthcare issue and examine how competing needs may impact the development of policies to address that issue.

To Prepare:

• Review the Resources and think about the national healthcare issue/stressor you previously selected for study in Module 1.
• Reflect on the competing needs in healthcare delivery as they pertain to the national healthcare issue/stressor you previously examined.

 Write an explanation of how competing needs, such as the needs of the workforce, resources, and patients, may impact the development of policy. Then, describe any specific competing needs that may impact the national healthcare issue/stressor you selected. What are the impacts, and how might policy address these competing needs? Be specific and provide examples.  

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name:

 

NURS_6053_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric

• Grid View
• List View

 

Main Posting

Main Post: Timeliness

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

First Response

Second Response

Participation

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Points: Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.   Supported by at least three current, credible sources.   Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.   At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.   Supported by at least three credible sources.   Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s).   One or 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.   Post is cited with two credible sources.   Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.   Contains some APA formatting errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.   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 sources.   Not written clearly or concisely.   Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.   Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3. Feedback:				Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.   Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.   Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.   Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.   Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.   Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.   Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.   Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are missing.   No credible sources are cited. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.   Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.   Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.   Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.   Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.   Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.   Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.   Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are missing.   No credible sources are cited. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

Main Posting–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
 
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
 
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Good
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
 
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
 
Supported by at least three credible sources.
 
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Fair
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
 
One or 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.
 
Post is cited with two credible sources.
 
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
 
Contains some APA formatting errors.

Poor
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
 
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 sources.
 
Not written clearly or concisely.
 
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
 
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Feedback:

Main Post: Timeliness–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

Good
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Fair
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Poor
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

Feedback:

First Response–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
 
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
 
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
 
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
 
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
 
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
 
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Good
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
 
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
 
Responses to faculty questions are 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.

Fair
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.
 
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
 
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
 
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Poor
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
 
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
 
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
 
No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Second Response–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
 
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
 
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
 
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
 
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
 
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
 
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Good
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
 
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
 
Responses to faculty questions are 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.

Fair
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.
 
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
 
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
 
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Poor
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
 
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
 
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
 
No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

Good
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Fair
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Poor
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6053_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric