NURS 8302 Week8 Discussion: Quality Improvement Model
What is the best way to implement quality improvement? What particular strategies and/or models should be used when developing a plan? Throughout the past 7 weeks, you have explored quality improvement in healthcare and nursing practice, and you will continue this exploration by analyzing specific quality improvement models. What models might work best in your nursing practice or healthcare organization?
Healthcare is complex and varied; therefore, quality improvement cannot be a one-sized fits all approach. To fit the complex and varied needs of an organization, there are multiple strategies and methods to implement quality improvement.
For this Discussion, select one quality improvement model to explore and analyze. Using the selected model, consider how this model might be implemented in your healthcare organization or nursing practice. Examine the effectiveness of this model and consider how this model might be applied to address impacts to adverse events for nursing practice.
To Prepare:
- Review the Learning Resources for this week, and reflect on the different quality improvement models presented.
- Select one quality improvement model from the following to focus on for this Discussion:
- Root Cause Analysis (RCA)
- A3
- Lean
- Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA)
- Reflect on the quality improvement model you selected, and consider how it might be implemented in your healthcare organization or nursing practice.
By Day 3 of Week 8
Post a brief explanation of the quality improvement model you selected, including a description of the components that make up this model. Be specific. Then, explain how this quality improvement model might be implemented in you healthcare organization or nursing practice in response to an adverse event requiring quality improvement. Be specific and provide examples.
Name: NURS_8302_Week8_Discussion_Rubric
- Grid View
- List View
ORDER NURS 8302 Week8 Discussion: Quality Improvement Model PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER
| Excellent90–100 | Good80–89 | Fair70–79 | 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 | |||||
