NURS 8302 Discussion Leadership for Change

NURS 8302 Week 6 Discussion Leadership for Change

Quality Improvement Plan

Quality improvement plans guide the improvement initiative by outlining the process, identifying stakeholders, and established the evaluation process. Utilizing a quality improvement plan leads to better success of implementation. In my current ambulatory clinic, operational quality improvements are always an ongoing initiative. A facility-wide quality initiative that is consistently managed is the “Likelihood to Recommend” measure of the patient experience. Within my organization, quality improvement initiatives are followed via a dyad group for each practice, consisting of the medical director, practice manager, and nurse manager. Each dyad group had three quality goals to reach throughout the fiscal year, one being a goal that is organizational wide which is currently the Likelihood to Recommend. The dyad groups meet, organizationally wide, in each quarter to discuss progress and share ideas for meeting the metrics. In the current goal metric for Likelihood to Recommend, my dyad group has developed several sprints to meet the goal that includes email capture, training & education of staff, communication including signs and scripting, and a continued clinic level patient experience team. This quality improvement initiative was developed by organizational leadership to keep the organization consistent with the current maximum threshold of patient experience scores.

Adverse events are defined as an event that causes an injury due to medical management (“Adverse Events, Near Misses, and Errors”, 2021). In my organization, adverse events are recorded via an online incident reporting system that is available to all employees. The events submitted are then sent to the appropriate department leader and reviewed by all parties involved, including nursing and healthcare leadership. Incident reports are reviewed monthly by a committee to determine the outcome of the incident and whether the incident should result in a swarm. Medical errors and adverse events can affect the integrity and trust of both the organization and the healthcare profession. The article “When a nurse is prosecuted for a fatal medical mistake, does it make medicine safer?” discusses the prosecution of a nurse who made a medication error that led to the death of the patient (2019). The article called this prosecution ‘unprecedented’ in that usually healthcare workers are usually on prosecuted when malicious intent or intoxication are involved in the medical error. The case has led to much debate in the concern of non-punitive approaches to reporting adverse incidents.

References:

Adverse Events, Near Misses, and Errors. Psnet.ahrq.gov. (2021). Retrieved 8 October 2021, from https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primer/adverse-events-near-misses-and-errors.

NPR Cookie Consent and Choices. Npr.org. (2021). Retrieved 8 October 2021, from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/04/10/709971677/when-a-nurse-is-prosecuted-for-a-fatal-medical-mistake-does-it-make-medicine-saf.

What are the characteristics of a transformational leader?

A transformational leader, as you have learned this week, is one who can inspire change and bring out the best in those around them. But what qualities does this leader possess? Maybe a transformational leader is reliable, inspiring, and charismatic. Maybe this leader will lead with integrity, respect, and empathy. Perhaps this leader is team-oriented, encouraging, and upbeat?

How would you define a transformational leader, and when have you witnessed such leadership?

Consider the role of transformational leadership in change for this Discussion. Examine the need for transformational leaders and describe your interactions with them. Analyze how these leaders can improve quality improvement in healthcare organizations and nursing practice.

To Prepare Leadership for Change Discussion Paper

Review the Learning Resources for this week, and reflect on potential leadership strategies for promoting change in healthcare organizations and nursing practice.
Consider the potential impact of project management for supporting transformational leadership approaches for promoting change in organizations.
Reflect on the relationship between transformational change, leadership strategies, and the need for quality improvement in your healthcare organization or nursing practice.

By Day 3 of Week 10

Post a brief explanation of the relationship between transformational leadership for change and the need for quality improvement. Share any experiences you may have of transformational leadership in your healthcare organization or nursing practice. Then, describe how you would recommend the application of project management approaches to support transformational leadership practices for the promotion of a quality improvement initiative in your healthcare organization or nursing practice. Be sure to include any short- and long-term milestones or goals associated with the quality improvement initiative described. Be specific and provide examples.

By Day 6 of Week 10

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 recommendation on using project management approaches for leading quality improvement efforts in your colleague’s healthcare organization or nursing practice.

Note: For this Leadership for Change 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 10 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 of Week 10 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 10

To Participate in this Discussion:

Week 10 Discussion

Top nursing paper writers on hand to assist you with assignment : NURS 8302 Discussion Leadership for Change

Get nursing paper help

Content

Name: NURS_8302_Week10 Leadership for Change 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%) 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%) 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%) 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%) 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%)

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%)

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%)

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%)

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

Name: NURS_8302_Week10_Discussion_Rubric

24/7 Nursing Homework Help

Stuck with your nursing assignment? From Essays to Complicated Dissertations? Our accredited nursing paper writers can answer it all!

NURS 8302 Discussion Leadership for Change