NURS 8210 Top of Form Information Architecture -

NURS 8210 Top of Form Information Architecture

Sample Answer for NURS 8210 Top of Form Information Architecture Included After Question

Post your responses to the Discussion based on the course requirements.

Your Discussion postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA guidelines as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and additional scholarly sources as appropriate. Initial postings must be 250–350 words (not including references).

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 2 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 2 Discussion

Discussion – Week 2 Top of Form Information Architecture

How do you use health information technology in your daily work activities? Does the CNO in your organization use the same HIT as the nurses at the bedside? What about those individuals who work in admissions? In order to develop an information system that can facilitate the ability to track, share, and analyze patient data, an organization has to take into account the differing needs or views of various departments.

In this Discussion, you consider the differing viewpoints of the professionals within your organization. Imagine what your colleagues’ needs might be and how they might use a HIT system to access and share information to promote evidence-based care. What are the similarities and differences in how this technology would be used by physicians, lab techs, administrators, nurses, informaticians, and others?

To prepare:

Review this week’s media presentation, focusing on how the VA’s VistA system demonstrates data flow across an organization.
Reflect on your organization’s information architecture and the various information needs of different groups within your work setting. What constraints has your organization faced with implementing health information technology systems that meet everyone’s needs? Consider speaking with your colleagues from different areas about this topic.
Ask yourself: How does the flow of data across my organization support, or inhibit, evidence-based practice?
NURS 8210 Top of Form Information Architecture

By Day 3 post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

Differentiate the information needs within your organization. For example, how might the needs of an administrator differ from the needs of a physician or lab tech?
Explain the impact of these different needs on the implementation of HIT in your present organization.
Evaluate how the flow of information across HIT systems within your organization supports or inhibits evidence-based practice.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

By Day 6 respond to at least two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.
Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8210 Top of Form Information Architecture

Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.

Click on the Reply button below to post your response.

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 8210 Top of Form Information Architecture

Title: NURS 8210 Top of Form Information Architecture

Differing Information Needs and The Impact on the Organization The healthcare system includes six hospitals and multiple physician practice organizations. EPIC is used by physicians, nursing therapy, etc. for inpatient and EPIC Ambulatory for outpatient and physician practice. The laboratory uses a system called SoftLab and radiation oncology uses Aria. For each of these systems to share patient data, an HL7 interface passes the information between the systems. Health Level Seven International (HL7) is the standard used to map data fields between systems and allow for the communication of the data (Nursing Informatics: Scope and standards of practice, 2015). The EHR has been configured with evidence-based order sets and documentation templates to guide patient care. In February 2016, an international task force was convened to define sepsis and septic shock (Singer, Deutschman, Seymour, & et al., 2016). Which is impacting several areas of the healthcare system technology, including the EBP order sets and the 3M 360 application.

Information Flow Across HIT and Evidence-Based Practice

Interfaces have been developed across 3M 360 and EPIC, but they are not complete. For example, all documentation from EPIC is interfaced into 3M 360 to all the clinical documentation improvement (CDI) nurse to review the record for completeness of the documentation to support the diagnosis and to meet quality measures. The CDI nurse if they find a lack of documentation or need for clarification, for example sepsis as a diagnosis, the nurse creates a query in EPIC. Because there is no interface for query information, the nurse must copy and paste the information back into 3M 360 for tracking. 3M 360 is supported by multiple EBP references by mapping information through Natural Language Processing (NLP) and through buttons. For example, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) is built into the system. The NLP will suggest diagnoses or needs to query based on the documentation from EPIC and if it meets certain EBP data within the documentation. EPIC and 3M 360 have the old definitions of sepsis and the EBP built into the systems to document and care for patients with sepsis. The issue now, is that the EBP has changed with SEPSIS 3 to include organ dysfunction based on Sequential [Sepsis-Related] Organ Failure Assessment Score (SOFA) (Singer et al., 2016). Recommendations to use codes R65.20 and R65.21 have also been made on the ICD-CM-10 codes to use, because the current codes do not match the new definitions (Singer et al., 2016). Even when a healthcare organization is trying to support EBP within HIT, when changes are made to the EBP it has clinical and billing impacts on the organization.

References:

Hanson, D. (2011). Evidence-Based clinical decision support. In M. J. Ball, J. V. Douglas, & P. H. Walker (Eds.),

Nursing informatics: Where technology and caring meet (Fourth ed., pp. 243-258). London New York:

Springer. Nursing Informatics: Scope and standards of practice. (2015). (Second ed.). Silver Spring,

MD: American Nursing Association.

Piedmont Now. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.piedmont.org/patienttools/piedmont-now

Singer, M., Deutschman, C. S., Seymour, C., & et al. (2016). THe third international consensus definitions

for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA, 315(8), 801-810. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0287

A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: NURS 8210 Top of Form Information Architecture

Title: NURS 8210 Top of Form Information Architecture

This is insightful, Fatoumata; health information system is an important resource in the healthcare system. With the increase in the demand for quality healthcare services, health information system has been used in the various department to enhance the quality of healthcare services delivered to patients. Both EPIC and EPIC Ambulatory are examples of technological products that can be applied to enhance the quality of healthcare delivery systems (Brundage et al., 2019). SoftLab and Aria are technologies commonly applied in healthcare systems to facilitate the quality of diagnosis and direct the treatment processes. SoftLab is often applied in the provision of quantifiable improvements in workflow efficiencies and clinical outcomes. The system was mainly developed after a careful analysis of some of the problems associated with the delivery of healthcare systems. SoftLab enables clients to achieve high productivity with full multisite consolidation, specimen tracking, as well as management reporting. Both SoftLab and Aria can be used together with the EHR systems to enhance the management of information and measure patient outcomes (Johnson & Ehrenfeld, 2018).

The EHR system is always applied in capturing and managing patient information and facilitating the development of other technological systems such as SoftLab and Aria (Hellems et al., 2021). In my organization, there is always the use of telehealth to enhance communication and the management of digital information. Telehealth often involves a network of computers and mobile devices. These devices can be used by patients to access healthcare services from remote locations. The devices should be carefully configured to reduce technology breaches and enhance efficiency in healthcare delivery processes. The development of technologies to be applied in the healthcare processes all depends on the data that have been collected in the course of healthcare processes; this explains the importance of EHR systems.

References

Brundage, M. D., Barbera, L., McCallum, F., & Howell, D. M. (2019). A pilot evaluation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite for clinical practice (EPIC-CP) tool in Ontario. Quality of Life Research, 28(3), 771-782. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11136-018-2034-x

Hellems, M. A. (2021). Ambulatory physicians’ electronic health record self-efficacy. JAMIA Open. https://academic.oup.com/jamiaopen/article/4/3/ooaa071/6062732?login=true

Johnson, K. B., & Ehrenfeld, J. M. (2018). An EPIC switch: preparing for an electronic health record transition at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Journal of medical systems, 42(1), 6. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10916-017-0865-6

A Sample Answer 3 For the Assignment: NURS 8210 Top of Form Information Architecture

Title: NURS 8210 Top of Form Information Architecture

Health information systems (HIS) facilitate patient safety in the organization through improved communication between health care professionals, improved tracking and reporting, quality care through clinical decision support systems, and improved medication safety (Ball et al., 2011). At my organization, the HIT system collects data for QI, outcome reporting, and surveillance purposes.

Information Workflow

When the patient enters the facility, the patient details are captured through the patient registration point. The next step in the flow of information is the triage nurse, who inputs the patient history and patient values into the Electronic Health Records (EHR). Next, providers record the patient’s diagnosis, notes, medications, and care plans. The data on medicines flow towards the laboratory and scans for evaluation of diagnostic tests. Afterward, the provider has a chance to integrate changes to care plans based on lab data. The information then flows to the pharmacy department as the patient awaits medications. The information flow represents a multidisciplinary facility. The communication between providers is collaborative and efficient, and gears towards patient-centered care (El-Said & El-Sol, 2018). Information continuity is a feature in the Women’s hospital, and the flow is efficient and contributes to quality care.

HIT Systems and Evidence-Based Practice

The health information system facilitates evidence-based practice through data collection to assess the efficacy of interventions and clinical decision support systems and alerts that optimize best practices. There is record uniformity to reduce variations in care. The HIS can also be utilized for a QI audit to assess compliance with (Evidence Based Practice) EBP. Patients can access medical records and are empowered to take an active role in managing their conditions. HIS can facilitate diagnostic tests and follow-ups for appointments/consultations. However, computerized order entry compromises EBP despite its benefits of decreased processing time and lower risk for adverse events. Clinical expertise is an integral domain of EBP, and automated entry disrupts workflow with incompatibilities that prevent full assessment of the patient’s needs (Oach & Watter, 2016). Improvements in design and integration between platforms and robust interoperability will facilitate evidence-based care. However, the exchange of data across all settings and providers within the organization improves safety.

References

Ball, M. J., Douglas, J. V., Hinton Walker, P., DuLong, D., Gugerty, B., Hannah, K. J., & Troseth, M. R. (Eds.) (2011). Nursing informatics: Where technology and caring meet (4th ed.). London, England: Springer-Verlag.

El-Said, A., & El-Sol, H. (2018). Technology into nursing practices: Enhance patient’s outcomes. Mansoura Nursing Journal, 5(1), 191-195. https://dx.doi.org/10.21608/mnj.2018.150637

Oach, P., & Watter, A. (2016). Health information management: Concepts, principles, and practice (Fifth ed.). Chicago: AHIMA.

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION Discussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.	Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning –Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE	Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.	Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION	Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.	Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.	Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%) Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
Total Points: 30

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION

Discussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning –Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Total Points: 30