Explain how systems thinking helps leaders to build strong interprofessional and organizational relationships NUR 550
Explain how systems thinking helps leaders to build strong interprofessional and organizational relationships NUR 550
Topic 1 DQ 2
The establishment of the Inter-Professional Education Collaborative approach by six national associations in 2009 signaled the beginning of increased collaboration among various healthcare professions and professionals. Since then, these organizations have collaborated to define interprofessional collaboration around four core competencies: values and ethics, roles and responsibilities, interprofessional collaboration communication practices, and interprofessional collaboration teamwork (Patel et al., 2017). As history demonstrates, developing strong interprofessional relationships fosters collaboration and improves patient outcomes by implying that health care teams collaborate to provide better care through increased communication and understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities.
Collaboration improves patient outcomes by minimizing avoidable adverse events, lowering mortality and morbidity, and optimizing medication dosage. Collaboration has a number of advantages, including the reduction of additional workload and an increase in overall patient satisfaction (Guraya & Barr, 2018). Accountability, discipline, coordination, and a clear purpose all contribute to the success of any multidisciplinary medical team. Individuals can form interprofessional teams and collaborate to support initiatives and improve patient outcomes in a variety of ways. These include effective communication and the development of shared values and ethics in order to facilitate accountability and teamwork.
Team members should prioritize doing what is best for patients, which requires them to emerge from their professional cocoons and
Explain how systems thinking helps leaders to build strong interprofessional and organizational relationships NUR 550
collaborate to improve outcomes and delivery of care. The emergence of new health delivery models and ongoing reforms in response to increased demand and population diversity imply that collaboration and teamwork will remain critical components of effective patient care delivery. The emphasis on fostering collaboration across healthcare professions will enable practitioners to provide the best care possible using evidence-based practice interventions. demonstrate how systems thinking assists leaders in developing strong interprofessional and organizational relationships
References
Guraya, S. Y., & Barr, H. (2018). The effectiveness of inter-professional education in healthcare:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences, 34(3), 160-165. doi: 10.1016/j.kjms.2017.12.009.
Patel, G. T., Brisolara, K. F., Davis, A. H., & Moore, R. (2017). Aligning inter-professional
education collaborative sub-competencies to a progression of learning. Journal of Inter-Professional Care, 31(3), 394-396. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2017.1285273. explain how systems thinking helps leaders to build strong interprofessional and organizational relationships
Name: 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. | 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. |
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. |
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. |
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 | 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
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 | 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date. |
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. | 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. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
| First Response: Writing | 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication 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. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication 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. |
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. |
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 | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
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. |
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. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
| Second Response: Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication 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. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication 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. |
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. |
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 |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
||
| Total Points: 100 | ||||||
Name: Discussion Rubric