INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE NURS 8210 - Nursing Assignment Crackers

Sample Answer for INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE NURS 8210 Included After Question

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?

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.
INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE NURS 8210
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 Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE NURS 8210

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: INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE NURS 8210

Title: INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE NURS 8210

Each area of practice lends itself to some common information requirements which can be utilized amongst health care professionals, but there are also areas such as administration that has differing information needs. While watching the VA video, the discussion around the Vista CPRS fully integrated system looked very extensive. They incorporated concepts that were derived from Blum’s and later Graves and Corcoran, which include data (objective), information (subjectively reviewed), and knowledge (formally completed content) (ANA, 2014). Although the Vista CPRS has a bountiful amount of content to support best practice, there are other areas of health needs that are specific and therefore require a unique set of system requirements. In the video, we see that a system was implemented that focused on the needs of the veterans to allow them prescription refills and other personal health needs (United Stats department of Veterans Affairs, 2011). In our area we have three major hospitals networks. The difficulty is that each of these networks have chosen different interfaces as their HIT systems. So a patient can go to two different hospitals in the same day and there is no communication or dialogue around the patients needs. This can become a dangerous situation if this patient was prescribed narcotics from two different health care prescriber and was planning on taking these together. In the hospital network I worked in, we used meditech as our HIT. This HIT system supports some evidence based practice and is great from a lab testing and sharing of patients personal data such as medical history, specific medical orders currently active and previous tests and diagnostics. Where we see it lacking is in the knowledge section. We are using another format of HIT for continuing education, looking up medication knowledge and skills. We would like to click on a patients prescribed medication and then that drug be linked to knowledge that would be applicable to the understanding and administration of it. We now must leave meditech and go into another application for this knowledge. Overall the needs of HIT continue to grow as our knowledge is being transmitted faster than ever before, and our patients’ health complexities also increase with an ageing population. Preparing for current and future trends such as seeing more integration between electronic health records, improved research, artificial intelligence (AI) and the use of robotics will be facilitated by partnerships and education amongst private and public institutions to develop an advancing approach to HIT (Sheikh et al., 2021).

References

ANA. (2014). Nursing Informatics (2nd Edition). American Nurses

Association. https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781558105812

Sheikh, A., Anderson, M., Albala, S., Casadei, B., Franklin, B. D., Richards, M., Taylor, D.,

Tibble, H., & Mossialos, E. (2021). Health information technology and digital innovation for national learning health and care systems. The Lancet. Digital Health, 3(6), e383–e396. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00005-4

United States Department of Veterans Affairs. (Producer). (2011). Innovation in VA, the Story

of VistA [Video]. Washington, DC: Author.

A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE NURS 8210

Title: INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE NURS 8210

I do agree with you that an integrated Health Information Technology is the solution to multidisciplinary teams’ collaboration hence reduced chances of medical errors and misinformation among the stakeholders (Alatawi et al., n.d.). HIT allow synchronization of all the health records of a patient creating a wider scope of reference by the medical practitioners when attending to the patients. A qualitative longitudinal approach for HIT adaptation studies has made it easier over time to understand thematic relationships. While thematic connectedness differed at different times because nurses were worried and satisfied, certain trends have been noted. Nurses appeared to be the most unhappy (Knighton et al., 2019). However, several sources of unrest, such as new equipment, sophisticated policies, and enhanced patient safety systems, can be addressed. About 18 months after the HIT execution, the perceptions of nurses seemed more balanced as shown by more consistent thematic frequencies and weaker Gephi coincident. The visual indicator of HIT Adaptation Progress can be a balanced thematic distribution and interconnection within Gephi chart. In order to confirm whether researchers can replicate these findings in other samples, future research is necessary (Zadvinskis et al., 2018).

References

Alatawi, M., Aljuhani, E., Alsuiany, F., & Aljanabi, S. (n.d.). Issue 4 • 1000496 J Nurs Care, an open access journal. 8. https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/barriers-of-implementing-evidencebased-practice-in-nursing-profession-a-literature-review.pdf

Knighton, A. J., McLaughlin, M., Blackburn, R., Wolfe, D., Andrews, S., Hellewell, J. L., Moore, R., Edwards, D. P., Allen, T. L., & Srivastava, R. (2019). Increasing Adherence to Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Quality Management in Health Care, 28(1), 65–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/qmh.0000000000000195

Zadvinskis, I. M., Garvey Smith, J., & Yen, P.-Y. (2018). Nurses’ Experience With Health Information Technology: Longitudinal Qualitative Study. JMIR Medical Informatics, 6(2), e38. https://doi.org/10.2196/medinform.8734

A Sample Answer 3 For the Assignment: INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE NURS 8210

Title: INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE NURS 8210

Information Needs Within an Organization

There are varying needs from the stakeholders within the health care system that employ and access health information technology (HIT). First, with the help of IT staff, clinicians such as nurses, physicians, etc., are using technology to improve documentation, enter orders, review medication interactions, and share scanned documents amongst various providers (U.S Dept. of VA, 2011). Next, the patients are key stakeholders and use HIT to view personal health information through secure patient portals which house lab results, radiology results, and more (U.S Dept. of VA, 2011). Third, hospital leadership use HIT to track outcomes, report data, and improve the quality of patient care (U.S. Dept. of V.A, 2011). Leadership can drive change and track data for quality indicators such as CLABSI, patient falls, documentation of blood product usage, usage of barcoded medication administration, breast milk storage, and physician electronic order entry (Stamps, et al., 2019). Leadership use this data from individual organizations to compare to national standards and improve patient care. Some of these metrics also play a role in hospital funding from CMS (Stamps, et al., 2019).

Impact of Different Needs in Implementation of HIT

The needs of clinicians, patients and hospital leadership impact the implementation of HIT within an organization. Clinicians needs to stay informed of current best practices and have opportunities to share those with the health information team. This partnership allows for the creation of appropriate documentation tools and common terminology built into the EMR. For patients, the implementation of a patient portal impacts the health information team to make sure access is user friendly and securely protected. Leadership impacts the implementation of HIT within an organization by ensuring resources are invested in health information teams. Leaders that understand how informatics can improve patient care, quality, and organizational outcomes will make strong investments in health informatics by providing resources and structure within that department.

The Flow of HIT and EBP

The flow of information through HIT supports the use of evidence-based practice at the hospital. The implementation of documentation tools that specifically capture assessments based on best practice is one way the EMR supports clinicians to follow EBP protocols and improves decision making (Ball, et al., 2011). For example, the hospital now has a chemotherapy tool for oncology patients who are actively receiving treatment that prompts the nurses to assess for common adverse event criteria. This information is entered into the system and then provides alerts to the bedside nurse based on EBP recommendations for mitigating these toxic side effects. Nurses can used this to provide comfort to patients and better communicate with physicians on appropriate medication management and orders.

References

Ball, M.J., et al., (2011). Nursing informatics: Where technology and caring meet (4^th ed.).

London, England: Springer-Verlag.

Stamps, et al., (2019). Chief nursing officer council leads journal to achieve HIMSS Stage 7

designation at 4 acute care hospitals: A case study. Nurse Leader 17, 3 Pgs 235-247.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2018.10.003

United States Department of Veteran Affairs. (Producer). (2011). Innovation in VA, The Story of

VistA [Video]. Washington, DC: Author.

INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE NURS 8210

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View

	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

Name: NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion_Rubric