NURS 8302 Discussion Strategies for Building Effective Teams

You have been assigned to work on a team to support a new quality improvement initiative at your nursing practice. The initiative is designed to support and improve patient care, and the team is tasked with leading the initiative. The team is comprised of the best and the brightest the nursing practice has to offer, selecting only the leaders of each department. However, after the first team meeting, you discover the team dynamics might lead to more argument than action.

If this concern manifests this early in the planning process of a quality improvement initiative, is this team the most effective for this task? What strategy might work best to ensure that the right team is composed for the task ahead?

Working in teams provides an important benefit to addressing a problem. A team can provide nuanced ideas and strategies that might be missed by working individually. Teams help to lessen the load on an individual, as well as provide different perspectives to spark ideas. However, working in teams is not without its challenges.

A mix of personalities, experiences, and styles can make or break a team, so what are the best ways to build an effective team? What strategies can be utilized to minimize any adverse effects of working in teams?

For this Strategies for Building Effective Teams Discussion, consider what makes an effective team. What strategies might you use to build an effective team? Who might need to be included in a team? Consider the use of teams for quality improvement, and analyze what would make an effective team for a quality improvement initiative.

To Prepare Strategies for Building Effective Teams Paper:

Review the Learning Resources for this week, and consider the potential impact and role of teams in quality improvement.
Reflect on potential strategies for building effective teams in promoting quality improvement initiatives for nursing practice and/or healthcare organizations.
Consider the type of stakeholders that might comprise these teams and potential challenges for “earning a seat at the table” of such a quality improvement team.

By Day 3 of Week 7

Post a brief explanation of a strategy you might recommend for building effective teams to support a quality improvement initiative in your healthcare organization or nursing practice. Be specific. Briefly describe the stakeholders you would recommend to make up this quality improvement team, and explain why. Be sure to define the roles of the members making up the quality improvement team. Then, explain any potential challenges or considerations you should keep in mind that may affect who might “earn a seat at the table” to comprise this team. Be specific and provide examples.

By Day 6 of Week 7

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 strategy recommendation and/or alternative stakeholders to take part in the quality improvement team 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

Post by Day 3 of Week 7 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 7

Top nursing paper writers on hand to assist you with NURS 8302 Discussion Strategies for Building Effective Teams. Write my nursing paper

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: NURS_8302_Week7 Strategies for Building Effective Teams 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_Week7_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 Strategies for Building Effective Teams