NURS 6231: HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS AND QUALITY OUTCOMES – Discussion 11 (Grading Rubic and Media Attached)
Get perfect grades by consistently using www.assignmentgeeks.org. Place your order and get a quality paper today. Take advantage of our current 20% discount by using the coupon code GET20
Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
Discussion: Spreading Innovation
An organization may be generally amenable to innovations but not ready or willing to assimilate a particular [Evidence-Based Practice] EBP …If there is tension around specific work or clinical issues and staff perceive that the situation is intolerable, a potential EBP is likely to be assimilated if it can successfully address the issues and thereby reduce the tension.
—Titler, 2010
Adoption of evidence-based innovations in nursing practice is a critical facet of promoting quality and safety. As a nurse leader-manager, you play a pivotal role in evaluating these innovations and promoting those that will positively impact outcomes.
To prepare:
Review the information on diffusion of innovation presented in the Learning Resources.
Visit the Agency for Healthcare Research and Qualities’ Innovation Exchange website (listed in the Learning Resources). Click on “Innovations & Quality Tools” or “Browse by Subject” then read through a selection of descriptions of innovations.
Evaluate how each of these innovations addresses a problem, and determine if you could integrate the innovation (or a similar one) into your organization or one with which you are familiar.
Select one of the innovations on which to focus for this Discussion. Think about how you might introduce this innovation in your selected organization, and strategies that you might use to facilitate communication and engagement needed to sustain the innovation.
Post a detailed review of one innovation that you found of particular interest on the AHRQ Innovation Exchange. Explain the problem being addressed, the innovation, and the outcomes and how you might introduce a similar innovation in your organization or one with which you are familiar. Outline strategies you would employ to sustain the innovation.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days using one or more of the following approaches:
Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information or research.
Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional resources.
Required Readings
Pedersen, A. R., & Johansen, M. B. (2012). Strategic and everyday innovative narratives: Translating ideas into everyday life in organizations. Innovation Journal, 17(1), 2–18.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
This article focuses on the implementation process for turning innovations into everyday practice.
Titler, M. G. (2010). Translation science and context. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice: An International Journal, 24(1), 35–55.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
The author examines the challenges of adopting innovations, such as evidence-based practices, and asserts that a systems view is needed to translation science into complex contexts.
Burns, M. J., Craig, R. B., Friedman, B. D., Schott, P. D., & Senot, C. (2011). Transforming enterprise communications through the blending of social networking and unified communications. Bell Labs Technical Journal, 16(1), 19–34.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Social media is a tool for creating and organizing collective knowledge. This article outlines one company’s experience using social media tools as a part of the corporate culture.
Dückers, M. A., Wagner, C., Vos, L., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2011). Understanding organisational development, sustainability, and diffusion of innovations within hospitals participating in a multilevel quality collaborative. Implementation Science, 6(1), 18–27.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
The ability to spread knowledge throughout an entire team is paramount in creating a successful team dynamic. This article outlines one study completed in the Netherlands focused on diffusing information and sustaining innovation.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2012). AHRQ health care innovations exchange. Retrieved from http://www.innovations.ahrq.gov
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website is a clearinghouse for innovative practice within the healthcare field. Review the information on this site as it relates to this week’s focus. (Assigned in a previous week.)
NURS 6231: HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS AND QUALITY OUTCOMES – Discussion 11 (Grading Rubic and Media Attached)
MSN Discussion Rubric Criteria Levels of Achievement Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Room for Improvement Poor Performance Content-Main Posting 30 to 30 points -Main posting addresses all criteria with 75% of post exceptional depth and breadth supported by credible references. 27 to 29 points -Main posting addresses all criteria with 75% of post exceptional depth and breadth supported by credible references. 24 to 26 points Main posting meets expectations. All criteria are addressed with 50% containing good breadth and depth. 21 to 23 points Main posting addresses most of the criteria. One to two criterion are not addressed or superficially addressed. 0 to 20 points Main posting does not address all of criteria, superficially addresses criteria. Two or more criteria are not addressed. Course Requirements and Attendance 20 to 20 points -Responds to two colleagues’ with posts that are reflective, are justified with credible sources, and ask questions that extend the Discussion. 18 to 19 points -Responds to two colleagues’ with posts that are reflective, are justified with credible sources, and ask questions that extend the Discussion. 16 to 17 points Responds to a minimum of two colleagues’ posts, are reflective, and ask questions that extend the Discussion. One post is justified by a credible source. 14 to 15 points Responds to less than two colleagues’ posts. Posts are on topic, may have some depth, or questions. May extend the Discussion. No credible sources are cited. 0 to 13 points Responds to less than two colleagues’ posts. Posts may not be on topic, lack depth, do not pose questions that extend the Discussion. Scholarly Writing Quality 30 to 30 points -The main posting clearly addresses the Discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with more than two credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors. ***The use of scholarly sources or real life experiences needs to be included to deepen the Discussion and earn points in reply to fellow students. 27 to 29 points -The main posting clearly addresses the Discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with more than two credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors. 24 to 26 points -The main posting clearly addresses the Discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with a minimum of two current credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. Contains one to two spelling or grammatical errors. 21 to 23 points -The main posting is not clearly addressing the Discussion criteria and is not written concisely. The main posting is cited with less than two credible references that may lack credibility and/or do not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. 0 to 20 points -The main posting is disorganized and has one reference that may lack credibility and does not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition or has zero credible references. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Professional CommunicationEffectiveness 20 to 20 points -Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues and response to faculty questions are answered if posed. -Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly Discussion topic. 18 to 19 points -Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are cited with at least one credible reference per post and a probing question that extends the Discussion. Adheres to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors. 16 to 17 points -Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are cited with at least one credible and/or contain probing questions that extends the Discussion. Adheres to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have one to two spelling or grammatical errors. 14 to 15 points -Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -Provides opinions that may not be concise or ideas not effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication that does not extend the Discussion, leads to an exchange of ideas and/or not focused on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are not cited and/or do not contain a probing question. May not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have more than two spelling or grammatical errors. 0 to 13 points -Communication may lack professional tone or be disrespectful to colleagues. -Provides opinions that may not be concise or ideas not effectively written in Standard Edited English -Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication through discussion that does not extend the Discussion, do not lead to an exchange of ideas and/or not focused on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are not cited and do not contain a probing question. May not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have multiple spelling or grammatical errors. Timely Submission 0 to 0 points All criteria met: Initial post submitted on time. Response to two peer initial posts. Response on 3 separate days. -5 to 0 points 5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers or 5 points deducted for responding less than three days. -10 to -5 points 5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers and 5 points deducted for responding less than three days. -10 to -10 points 10 points deducted for Initial post submitted late. -20 to -15 points Initial post submitted late and 5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers and/ or 5 points deducted for responding less than three days. © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 5 of 5
"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"
ORDER NOW
Need help with an assignment? We work for the best interests of our clients. We maintain professionalism and offer brilliant writing services in most of the fields ranging from nursing, philosophy, psychology, biology, finance, accounting, criminal justice, mathematics, computer science, among others. We offer CONFIDENTIAL, ORIGINAL (Turnitin & SafeAssign checks), and PRIVATE services using the latest (within 5 years) peer-reviewed articles. Kindly click on ORDER NOW to receive an A++ paper from our masters- and doctorate-prepared writers. Thank you in advance!
Get a 15% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE15
Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper