Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

Discussion: The Purpose Of A Root-Cause Analysis

Discussion: The Purpose Of A Root-Cause Analysis

NURS 8300 Week 8: The Role of Teams in Quality Improvement

Root-Cause Analysis Discussion: Describe the purpose of a root-cause analysis. Discuss an example of any issue that would necessitate a root-cause analysis. You may use an incident from a referenced article, textbook, or personal experience. Support your analysis with one peer-reviewed reference. Identify the actions that would need to be taken to correct the issue.

Discussion: The Purpose Of A Root-Cause Analysis

Note: Weeks 8 and 9 are linked together in an assignment that is completed within your group. Each group will receive the same grade for the final powerpoint submission at the end of Week 9. Each individual will receive a unique grade in Week 8 which is based on your individual contribution to the small group discussion boards in both weeks, and the slides that you contribute to the PowerPoint.

Root Cause Analysis Discussion

As a case study team, prepare a 10 slide power-point using tools provided in this case study to present your rationale and validation of the root causes your team has chosen. Be sure to include at least 4 peer reviewed research studies which evoke validation of the latest patient safety evidence in support of your root cause findings. Also address the extent to which this scenario evokes implication for value based purchasing.

To prepare for Week 8:

  • Read the case study posted in doc sharing in its entirety.
  • Appoint a team facilitator and divide the work between you.

Week 8 Discussion:

  • Engage in dialogue to answer the questions posed in the case study.

In order to accomplish the IOM mandate for safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered care in a complex environment, healthcare professionals must function as highly collaborative teams …

—AACN (2006, p. 14)

The dynamic and increasingly complex world of health care often requires professionals to work collaboratively on interdisciplinary teams. In the team environment, individuals with unique skills and expertise come together to focus on a common goal, developing solutions that none of them could have accomplished alone. Selecting members to serve on teams and supporting team members as they begin their work are important responsibilities.

What can you as a leader do to engage team members? What conditions motivate individuals to contribute toward quality improvement by participating on a team? How can leadership encourage those working on the team to respond appropriately in a challenging situation? What management theories can support your efforts at developing an effective team? In this Discussion, you consider various strategies for promoting quality in health care organizations through effective team leadership.

Reference: American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2006). The essentials of doctoral education for advanced nursing practice. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/publications/position/DNPEssentials.pdf

Discussion: The Purpose Of A Root-Cause Analysis

Discussion: The Purpose Of A Root-Cause Analysis

To prepare FOR Root-Cause Analysis Discussion:

  • Assemble in small groups for the Week 8 and Week 9 Discussions (groups will be assigned by the instructor in week 7).
  • Read the Case Study ‘Per-operative Services in major medical centers’, assigned in your Week 8 Learning Resources.
  • Assign roles within the group to analyze the case study for week 9, and take a position as a group.

By Day 3 OF Root-Cause Analysis Discussion

Post your response.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

By Day 7 OF Root-Cause Analysis Discussion

Respond to two of your colleagues in your small group 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.

NURS 8300 Week 9 Assignment: Major Assessment 6

For this Assignment, continue to access IHI.org and complete the relevant modules.

Week 8 IHI Open School Modules

  • L 101: Introduction to Health Care Leadership

There is nothing to submit this week.

Please save the certificate you receive upon completion. You will be required to upload this to gradebook in evidence of your completion.

Discussion: The Purpose Of A Root-Cause Analysis

NURS 8300 Week 8: The Role of Teams in Quality Improvement

Effective teamwork is essential for helping a health care organization achieve its objectives and meet patients’ needs. This week provides an opportunity to deepen your knowledge about groups and teams. You explore the characteristics of effective teams, strategies for engaging and keeping team members invested, and how organizational theory can guide and support these efforts. As a DNP-prepared nurse, you will likely play a central role in both establishing and leading interprofessional teams.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this week, you will be able to:

  • Define membership and roles for effective quality improvement teams
  • Critique the application of organizational theory in team processes

Photo Credit: [Martin Barraud]/[Caiaimage]/Getty Images


Learning Resources

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings FOR Root-Cause Analysis Discussion

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:Discussion: The Purpose Of A Root-Cause Analysis

Joshi, M.S., Ransom, E.R., Nash, D.B., & Ransom, S.B., (Eds.). (2014). The Healthcare Quality Book, 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: Health Adminisration Press.

  • Chapter 8: “The Culture Connection: Hardwiring Consistent Quality Delivery”
  • Chapter 12: “Creating a Culture of Safety and High Reliability”

Document: Case Study: Week 8 & 9 Peri-Operative Services in Major Medical Centers (PDF)

Sustainable leadership: Leading business, industry and local government towards a sustainable future. (2011). Strategic Direction, 27(2), 5–8.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

The beginning of this article provides a general definition for leadership in and discusses a model to make that leadership sustainable. The article then focuses on leadership qualities for the present and the future.

Clarke, D. J. (2010). Achieving teamwork in stroke units: The contribution of opportunistic dialogue. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 24(3), 285–297. doi:10.3109/13561820903163645

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Because there is little data on how stroke units coordinate, the study in this article examines how the health care professionals from different fields coordinate their efforts in two separate stoke units in the United Kingdom. The article discusses the findings and strategies that other health care organizations can use to improve quality care.

Reeves, S., Macmillan, K., & van Soeren, M. (2010). Leadership of interprofessional health and social care teams: a socio-historical analysis. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(3), 258–264. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01077.x

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

From the 16th century until the present, this article looks at the teamwork of health care professionals with a historical perspective. It covers the transformation of modern nursing from the early formation of guilds. The article then discusses the challenges that leader encounter when collaborating in the health care industry.

Wang, M.-L., Chen, W.-Y., Lin, Y.-Y., & Hsu, B.-F. (2010). Structural characteristics, process, and effectiveness of cross-functional teams in hospitals: Testing the I-P-O model. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 21(1), 14–22. doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2010.02.003

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

The study within this article uses McGrath’s Input-Process-Output team theoretical model to gain understanding on how different specialists work together as a team in health care organizations. The article discusses the methodologies, findings, and conclusions drawn from the study.

Required Media

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2011). Organizational and systems leadership for quality improvement: Groups and teams. Baltimore: Author.

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 15 minutes.

This video discusses the team development process and how teams can improve health care quality and patient safety.

Root Cause Analysis

Root-Cause Analysis Discussion

Rubric Detail

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

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.

(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*.
(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*.

Root-Cause Analysis Discussion

(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*.

Root-Cause Analysis Discussion

(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
(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.
(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.

Root-Cause Analysis Discussion

(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
(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.

Root-Cause Analysis Discussion

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION
(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.

Root-Cause Analysis Discussion

(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
(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.

Root-Cause Analysis Discussion

(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.

Root-Cause Analysis Discussion

QUALITY OF WRITING
(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.
(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;.
(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.
(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
Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.