NURS 8100 Assignment 3: Policy Analysis Paper [Major Assessment]
NURS 8100 Assignment 3 Policy Analysis Paper [Major Assessment]
NURS 8100 Assignment 3: Policy Analysis Paper [Major Assessment]
https://topnursingpapers.com/nurs-8100-assignment-3-policy-analysis-paper-major-assessment/
In previous Discussions and Assignments, you examined various aspects of the policy process, such as policy unintended consequences, agenda setting, and policy recommendation analysis. You will have the opportunity to further develop your analysis skills in this Assignment by working through the policy analysis process. To be an effective agent of social change, you must be able to analyze policy logically and critically from multiple perspectives and contexts, and then present your findings in a concise and professional manner. This exercise will provide such an opportunity.
For this Assignment, you will examine a specific policy of interest to you (perhaps the one you chose for this week’s Discussion) and use a policy analysis framework to understand the impact of the policy’s implementation. You will then write a policy analysis paper, which is due on the fifth day of Week 11. This paper will also serve as your course’s Major Assessment.
To prepare:
Select a health care policy and a policy analysis framework to utilize for this Assignment. You may use the policy and framework you identified in this week’s Discussion or change your selection.
To complete:
Write an 8- to 10-page analysis paper (including references) in which you succinctly address the following:
- Part 1: Define the policy issue.
- How is the issue affecting the policy arena?
- What are the current politics of the issue?
- At what level in the policy making process is the issue?
- Part 2: Apply a policy analysis framework to explore the issue using the following contexts:
- Social
- Ethical
- Legal
- Historical
- Financial/economic
- Theoretical underpinnings of the policy
- Include in this section:
- Who are the stakeholders of interest?
- Is there a nursing policy/position statement on this health care issue? If so, who developed it?
- Part 3: Policy options/solutions
- What are the policy options/solutions for addressing the issue? Include at least three levels of options/solutions: no change; partial change; radical change or maximum change.
- What are the theoretical underpinnings of the policy options/solutions?
- What are the health advocacy aspects and leadership requirements of each option?
- How does each option/solution provide an opportunity or need for inter-professional collaboration?
- What are the pros and cons of each suggested change? Include the cost benefits, effectiveness, and efficiency of each option along with the utility and feasibility of each option.
- Part 4: Building Consensus
- Outline a plan for building consensus around your recommended option/solution for solving the policy issue.
- Part 5: References
- Limit your references so this section is no more than 2 pages.
Your written assignments must adhere to APA standards. Make sure to cite specific citations from appropriate Learning Resources and additional scholarly sources as needed. To ensure that your in-text citations and reference list are correct, consult the American Psychological Association’s Publication Manual.
By Day 7 of Week 11
This Assignment is due.
Continue to work on this Assignment, assigned in Week 4. You will need to incorporate any related topics addressed this week. Your policy analysis paper is due by Day 7 of this week.
By Day 7
Submit this Assignment.
Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
- Please store your assignment with the extension “WK11Assgn3+last name+first initial. (extension).”
By clicking the Week 11 Assignment 3 Rubric, you may review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
Go to the link for Week 11 Assignment 3. You can use “View Rubric” to see the grading criteria for this area.
Then, in the Attach File section, select Browse My Computer from the drop-down menu. Open the file named “WK11Assgn3+last name+first initial. (extension)” that you saved.
If applicable, in the Plagiarism Tools section, click the box next to I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
Click the Submit button to complete your submission.
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 11 Assignment 3 Rubric
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:
Submit your Week 11 Assignment 3 draft and review the originality report.
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7
To submit your Assignment:
Week 11 Assignment 3
Also Read: NURS 8100 Wk 11 Discussion: Nursing and Health Policy in Other Nations
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation
<
Looking for nursing papers writing help? Top Nursing Papers Writing Service Online is here. A team of professional nursing essay writers ready to help. Relieve academic stress! With you all through your education course. There is no nursing subject we cannot handle.
Assignment 3: Policy Analysis Paper
Program LOs: 4, 5
4: Professions/Collaborators
5: Effective Communicators
DNP Essentials: 5, 6
5: Healthcare Policy for Advocacy in Healthcare
6: Interprofessional collaboration for Improving Patient and Population Health Outcomes
![NURS 8100 Assignment 3 Policy Analysis Paper [Major Assessment]](https://topnursingpapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NURS-8100-Assignment-3-Policy-Analysis-Paper-Major-Assessment-300x47.png)
| ASSIGNMENT PROMPT | Target
5 points |
Acceptable
3 points |
Unacceptable
1 point |
Score/Level |
|
Policy analysis paper Part 1: Definition of policy issue Program LO: 4, 5 DNP Essential: 5, 6 |
Exemplary quality.
Content is of a professional portfolio quality; addresses every major subsection in the assignment; how the issue affects the policy arena; current politics of the issue; level in the policy making process using advanced critical thinking skills; does not summarize or paraphrase the content of the literature review; instead, demonstrates content mastery using examples of and/or personalized reflections about the content of the literature review; demonstrates an applied level of understanding through personalized reflections about the content area. Excels in meeting expectations for graduate level work. Fully meets expectations for LOs 4 and 5.
Fully meets expectations for Essentials 5 and 6. |
Well-developed good quality work.
Content is of a professional portfolio quality; addresses at least 80% of the major subsections in the assignment using adequate critical thinking skills; includes some summarizing or paraphrasing of literature review; demonstration of content mastery using examples of and/or personalized reflections about the content of the literature review; demonstration of an applied level of understanding through personalized reflections about the content area. It fully meets expectations for graduate level work. Meets expectations for LOs 4, 5.
Meets expectations for Essentials 5, 6. |
Superficially developed, unacceptable quality.
Content needs substantial revision for it to be of a professional portfolio quality; addresses less than 50% of the major subsections in the assignment using weak critical thinking skills; consists primarily of a summary of main ideas from the literature review; does not demonstrate an applied level of understanding. Lags behind expectations for graduate level work.
Insufficient to meet expectations for LOs 4, 5. Insufficient to meet expectations for Essentials 5, 6. |
|
| Part 2: Application of a policy analysis framework
Program LO: 4, 5 DNP Essential: 5, 6. |
Exemplary quality.
Content is of a professional portfolio quality; addresses every major subsection in the assignment; social, ethical, legal, historical, economic, and theoretical contexts explored; stakeholders and position statements discussed using advanced critical thinking skills; does not summarize or paraphrase the content of the literature review; instead, demonstrates content mastery using examples of and/or personalized reflections about the content of the literature review; demonstrates an applied level of understanding through personalized reflections about the content area. Excels in meeting expectations for graduate level work.
Fully meets expectations for LOs 4 and 5. Fully meets expectations for Essentials 5 and 6. |
Well-developed good quality work.
Content is of a professional portfolio quality; addresses about 80% of the major subsections in the assignment using adequate critical thinking skills; includes some summarizing or paraphrasing of literature review; demonstration of content mastery using examples of and/or personalized reflections about the content of the literature review; demonstration of an applied level of understanding through personalized reflections about the content area. It meets expectations for graduate level work.
Meets expectations for LOs 4, 5. Meets expectations for Essentials 5, 6. |
Superficially developed, unacceptable quality.
Content needs substantial revision for it to be of a professional portfolio quality; addresses less than 50% of the major subsections in the assignment using weak critical thinking skills; consists primarily of a summary of main ideas from the literature review; does not demonstrate an applied level of understanding. Lags behind expectations for graduate level work.
Insufficient to meet expectations for LOs 4, 5. Insufficient to meet expectations for Essentials 5, 6. |
|
| Part 3: Presentation of policy options and/or solutions
Program LOs: 4, 5. DNP Essential: 5, 6. |
Exemplary quality.
Content is of a professional portfolio quality; addresses every major subsection in the assignment; discussion of 3 policy options, including theoretical, advocacy and collaborative elements; pros and cons of each using advanced critical thinking skills; does not summarize or paraphrase the content of the literature review; instead, demonstrates content mastery using examples of and/or personalized reflections about the content of the literature review; demonstrates an applied level of understanding through personalized reflections about the content area. Excels in meeting expectations for graduate level work. Fully meets expectations for LOs 4 and 5. Fully meets expectations for Essentials 5 and 6. |
Well-developed good quality work.
Content is of a professional portfolio quality; addresses about 80% of the major subsections in the assignment using adequate critical thinking skills; includes some summarizing or paraphrasing of literature review; demonstration of content mastery using examples of and/or personalized reflections about the content of the literature review; demonstration of an applied level of understanding through personalized reflections about the content area. It meets expectations for graduate level work.
Meets expectations for LOs 4, 5. Meets expectations for Essentials 5, 6. |
Superficially developed, unacceptable quality.
Content needs substantial revision for it to be of a professional portfolio quality; addresses less than 50% of the major subsections in the assignment using weak critical thinking skills; consists primarily of a summary of main ideas from the literature review; does not demonstrate an applied level of understanding. Lags behind expectations for graduate level work.
Insufficient to meet expectations for LOs 4, 5. Insufficient to meet expectations for Essentials 5, 6. |
|
| Part 4: Plan for building consensus
Program LOs: 4, 5. DNP Essential: 5, 6. |
Exemplary quality.
Content is of a professional portfolio quality; addresses every major subsection in the assignment; discussion of 3 policy options, including and includes strategies for how to persuade others and / or build consensus using advanced critical thinking skills; does not summarize or paraphrase the content of the literature review; instead, demonstrates content mastery using examples of and/or personalized reflections about the content of the literature review; demonstrates an applied level of understanding through personalized reflections about the content area. Excels in meeting expectations for graduate level work. Fully meets expectations for LOs 4 and 5. Fully meets expectations for Essentials 5 and 6. |
Well-developed good quality work.
Content is of a professional portfolio quality; addresses about 80% of the major subsections in the assignment using adequate critical thinking skills; includes some summarizing or paraphrasing of literature review; demonstration of content mastery using examples of and/or personalized reflections about the content of the literature review; demonstration of an applied level of understanding through personalized reflections about the content area. It meets expectations for graduate level work. Meets expectations for LOs 4, 5. Meets expectations for Essentials 5, 6. |
Superficially developed, unacceptable quality.
Content needs substantial revision for it to be of a professional portfolio quality; addresses less than 50% of the major subsections in the assignment using weak critical thinking skills; consists primarily of a summary of main ideas from the literature review; does not demonstrate an applied level of understanding. Lags behind expectations for graduate level work.
Insufficient to meet expectations for LOs 4, 5. Insufficient to meet expectations for Essentials 5, 6. |
|
| Part 5: References and page requirements
|
The majority of references are from scholarly journals, supports the topic well, and are current. Paper stays within page requirements. APA format used correctly throughout.
Excels in meeting expectations for graduate level work.
|
Most references are from scholarly journals and support the topic. Most references are fairly current. The paper stays within requirements. APA format used with minimal errors.
Meets expectations for graduate level work. |
References are not sufficient or are mostly from the lay literature or out of date. The paper is either too long or too short. Weak writing quality and/or little evidence of correctness of APA format.
Work lags behind expectations for graduate level work. |
|
| Grammar and APA formatting |
Up to 5 points (20%) may be deducted for errors in grammar and/or APA style. |
|||
Assignment:
Write an 8–10-page analysis paper (including references) in which you succinctly address the following:
- Part 1: Define the policy issue. (5 points)
- How is the issue affecting the policy arena?
- What are the current politics of the issue?
- At what level in the policy making process is the issue?
- Part 2: Apply a policy analysis framework to explore the issue using the following contexts (5 points):
- Social
- Ethical
- Legal
- Historical
- Financial / economic
- Theoretical underpinnings of the policy
- Include in this section:
- Who are the stakeholders of interest?
- Is there a nursing policy / position statement on this health care issue? If so, who developed it?
- Part 3: Policy options / solutions (5 points)
- What are the policy options / solutions for addressing the issue? Include at least three levels of options / solutions: no change; partial change; radical change or maximum change.
- What are the theoretical underpinnings of the policy options / solutions?
- What are the health advocacy aspects and leadership requirements of each option?
- How does each option / solution provide an opportunity or need for interprofessional collaboration?
- What are the pros and cons of each suggested change? Include the cost benefits, effectiveness, and efficiency of each option along with the utility and feasibility of each option.
- Part 4: Building Consensus (5 points)
- Outline a plan for building consensus around your recommended option / solution for solving the policy issue.
- Part 5: References (5 points)
- Limit your references so this section is no more than 2 pages.
*Note: Up to 5 points (20%) may be deducted for errors in grammar and/or APA style.
| OLD | NEW | |
| Target | Worthy of a professional portfolio; addresses every major subsection in the assignment; | Content is of a professional portfolio quality; addresses every major subsection in the assignment; |
| Acceptable | Needs revision to be worthy of a professional portfolio; addresses about 75% of the major subsections in the assignment | Content is of a professional portfolio quality; addresses about 80% of the major subsections in the assignment |
| Unacceptable | Needs substantial revision to be worthy of a professional portfolio; addresses less than 50% of the major subsections in the assignment | Content needs substantial revision for it to be of a professional portfolio quality; addresses less than 50% of the major subsections in the assignment |