NURS 8100 Week 10: Nursing and Health Policy: The International Perspective
Sample Answer for NURS 8100 Week 10: Nursing and Health Policy: The International Perspective Included After Question
To be a professional nurse today means having a world view. With the internationalization of health care issues, it is important to broaden your perspective and explore international health policy and nursing practice.
This week, you will focus on global health care policy. You will examine the nursing profession through an international lens, as well as investigate global efforts to promote health policies and improve health care delivery around the world.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Compare and contrast U.S. nursing or health-related policies with those of another country
- Evaluate the role of international nursing or health organizations in developing or supporting nursing policy
Photo Credit: [Bartosz Hadyniak]/[Vetta]/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
Bodenheimer, T., & Grumbach, K. (2016). Understanding health policy: A clinical approach (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Medical.
- Chapter 14, “Health Care in Four Nations”This chapter compares the health care systems in Germany, Canada, United Kingdom, and Japan. All these nations offer universal health care; however, they organize and finance health care in varying ways.
Asadov, D.A., & Aripov, T. Y. (2009). The quality of care in post-soviet Uzbekistan: Are health reforms and international efforts succeeding? Public Health, 123(11), 725–728.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
The authors discuss why health care initiatives in developing countries, such as Uzbekistan, are not succeeding, even with international involvement. They suggest involving regional input and consideration for better success.
Baillie, L., & Gallagher, A. (2009). Evaluation of the Royal College of Nursing’s ‘Dignity: At the heart of everything we do’ campaign: Exploring challenges and enablers. Journal of Research in Nursing, 15(1), 15–28.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8100 Week 10: Nursing and Health Policy: The International Perspective
This article provides details from a study concerning the Royal College of Nursing’s campaign to promote dignity in care. The authors focus on two aspects of the study—“enablers” and “challenges” of providing dignity in care to patients.
Clarke, S. P., & Aiken, L. H. (2008). An international hospital outcomes research agenda focused on nursing: Lessons from a decade of collaboration. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(24), 3317–3323.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
The authors depict findings from an international nursing survey, which concludes that nurses work experiences (positive and negative) are remarkably consistent across countries, regardless of cultural differences. The authors propose that a global effort to improve the nurses work environments will lead to improved patient care.
Crigger, N. (2008). Towards a viable and just global nursing ethics. Nursing Ethics, 15 (1), 17–27.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
This article discusses global justice and the nursing profession, and proposes five characteristics to guide global ethics. The author proposes that technology and business can act as barriers to global justice.
Eckenwiler, L. A. (2009). The WHO code of practice on the international recruitment of health personnel: We have only just begun. Developing World Bioethics, 9(1).
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has drafted a Code of Practice to encourage global health care policies. The author focuses on the detrimental impact of health care professionals migrating from source countries (usually the global South) to destination countries. The author suggests that WHO could be more specific in the code relating to stakeholders and shared responsibilities to promote collaboration by all parties involved in global health care.
Koch, K., Schurmann, C., & Sawicki, P. (2010). The German health care system in international comparison: A patient perspective. Deutsches Arzteblatt International 107(24), 427–434.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
This article provides information gleaned from a Commonwealth Fund survey on international health care experiences. The authors report a variation in patient experiences and satisfaction internationally but German respondents reported less satisfaction than most countries. German patients tend to be seen by more than one doctor, and perhaps the reported dissatisfaction can be traced to a lack of coordination in care.
Lartey, S., Cummings, G., & Profetto-McGrath, J. (2014). Interventions that promote retention of experienced registered nurses in health care settings: A systematic review. Journal of Nursing Management, 22(8), 1027-1041. doi:10.1111/jonm.12105
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
The authors of this study examine the effectiveness of strategies for retaining experienced Registered Nurses. Noting the challenges of nursing shortages on a global scale, the authors explore those factors that could promote the retention of experienced nurses and suggest new opportunities for fulfilling a sustained nursing workforce.
Tyer-Viola, L., Nicholas, P., Corless, I., Barry, D., Hoyt, P., Fitzpatrick, J., & Davis, S. (2009). Social responsibility of nursing: a global perspective. Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice, 10(2), 110–118. doi: 10.1177/1527154409339528
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
This article depicts a study that examines nursing, social responsibility, and global health. The authors focus on concepts such as social justice, human rights, nurse migration, and nurse education as well as strategies to address these issues.
The RCN represents the interests of nurses in the United Kingdom and promotes health care policy.
Optional Resources
Evans, C., & Ndirangu, E. (2008). The nursing implications of routine provider-initiated HIV testing and counseling in sub-Saharan Africa: A critical review of new policy guidance from WHO/UNAIDS. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(5), 723–731.
France, C. (2008). The form and context of federalism: Meaning for health care financing. Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law, 33(4), 649–705. doi: 10.1215/03616878-2008-012
International Nursing Review. (2009). ICN initiative to fortify health workforce will open new Centre in Uganda. International Nursing Review, 56(2), 151–152.
Pulcini, J., Jelic, M., Gul, R., & Loke, A. Y. (2010). An international survey on advanced practice nursing education, practice, and regulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42(1), 31–39.
Discussion: Nursing and Health Policy in Other Nations
Think for a moment about nurses who relocate because of professional opportunities. How could such a seemingly personal decision have a detrimental impact on global health care? As presented in this week’s Learning Resources, nurse migration is of global concern. In response to this issue, international health care organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Council of Nurses (ICN) have positioned themselves to craft related policy as a solution. This is just one example of a global nursing policy effort.
To prepare:
- With information from the Learning Resources in mind, select a U.S. nursing- or health-related policy.
- Search the web and locate a similar policy in another country.
- Consider how the two policies are similar and dissimilar.
- Was an international organization involved in promoting the policies? If not, should they have been?
By Day 3
Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:
- Post information on the nursing or health-related policies you located including a reference to the source.
- Indicate the country you are comparing to the U.S.
- Compare and contrast the two policies. What insights did you gain as a result of this comparison?
- What is the role of international organizations in developing policy? Provide a specific example.
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.
Note: Please see the Syllabus and Discussion Rubric for formal Discussion question posting and response evaluation criteria.
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.
Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6
To participate in this Discussion:
Assignment 3: Policy Analysis Paper
[Major Assessment 2]
Continue to work on this Assignment, assigned in Week 4 and due in Week 11. Analyze any state and local politics and issues surrounding your selected health care policy. This information should be included in Part 1 of your analysis paper.
By Day 7 of Week 11
Submit this Assignment.
Week in Review
This week, you compared and contrasted U.S. nursing or health-related policies with those of another country and evaluated the role of international nursing or health organizations in developing or supporting nursing policy.
In the final week, you will reflect on the implications of health care policies for consumers and health care providers.
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 8100 Week 10: Nursing and Health Policy: The International Perspective
Title: NURS 8100 Week 10: Nursing and Health Policy: The International Perspective
There is no health care without mental health care and “access to mental health services is one of the most important and most neglected civil rights issues facing the Nation” (Haffajee et al., 2019). There are two policies addressing mental health in the United States (US), the Mental Health Parity Act (MHPA), enacted in 1996, to eliminate discriminatory insurance practices, and establish the no disparity principle, in health insurance between mental health and general medical benefits. The second was the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) of 2008 to cover preventative services, mental health screenings and, eliminate the annual and lifetime benefit caps (Busch, 2012). The comparison policy is the Mental Health Act (1983) of the United Kingdom (UK), the main legislation that covers the mental health assessments, treatments, and the rights of these patients. This was amended to the Mental Health Act of 2007 mandating the health professionals, to detain, assess and treat these patients as needed, in the interests of their health, safety, or public safety (Keown et al., 2018).
The mental disorder still has associated stigma in both countries but has improved some. There are some notable differences in the policies: In the US a visit to a psychologist is perceived as routine, however, in Britain, the same visit is a major step, and an admission of an illness, which is still considered shameful, so these mental visits are publicized (Mills & Phull, 2017). This is mostly rooted in Britain’s reserved culture that, if a person is depressed, he should not make a fuss, but get on with it, or simply sort it out, so, these mental patients cannot share this information at work, fearing it would hamper their careers, and, if claiming that the job itself was contributing to that state, could be construed, as an admission that one is simply not up to the job (Mills & Phull, 2017). The U.S. has lesser mental health professionals, about 105 professionals per 100,000 people, while the UK has twice that number of mental health workers. In the UK, mental health services are available, and free for everyone through the National Health Service (NHS), with both psychiatrists and psychologists being part of the system, however, the consultant-led medical services have an 18-week maximum wait that is mandated by law. To be able to obtain mental health care under the NHS system, patients must be referred to a psychiatric specialist by their General Practitioner (GP), because mental health care is regarded as part of a patient’s overall health care and is approached in the light of their full medical history, with no reported issues or any care denial (Mulvaney-Day et al., 20 19) This applies to all mental patients, except those experiencing mental issues related to drug and, or alcohol abuse, who do not require a referral from a GP to obtain treatment. There is flexibility in the choice of practitioner, and the patients have the right to choose their first mental health practitioner, and if unsatisfied, can opt for a second opinion. There are still waiting lists for some treatments, like inpatient treatments, but most services are outpatient, similar to the US (Keown et al., 2018). The U.S mental health policies have been described as being in the dark ages because, they were not covered, and it was legal for the insurance companies to completely deny them, just because they could, and. It was only with the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in 2008, that the U.S system was slightly comparable to the U.K system. The UK system is considered very superior due to easy and free access through primary care, to the US system, because its care access depends on the sick person’s ability to pay, leaving the patients at the mercy of the expensive inaccessible insurance coverage plans. US citizens in comparison to the UK citizens are among the most willing individuals, to seek mental health treatments, but they are the least likely to report access or affordability issues, which results in high unmet needs. This reflects a limited health system capacity, inability to meet the required needs, with data reporting that the US has some of the worst mental health-related outcomes, the highest suicide rates in the industrialized world, and the second-highest drug-related death rates in the world (Mulvaney-Day et al., 20 19).
Every U K resident has some form of health coverage, even before dissecting mental health services, which is distinctive, and their definition of health coverage includes mental health services. Nothing in the US mental system is free, and the patients solely depend on their insurance, and access to care depends on the affordability of the premiums, hindering much-needed care access. The NHS England expanded access to talk therapies in primary care settings more than a decade ago, through the Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies program. It now has more than 1.4 million patients in the program, served by specialized, nonclinical mental health practitioners, which has been described as the world’s most ambitious effort to treat depression, with reported favorable favorable outcomes (Keown et al., 2018). The US. leaders could learn from the UK, in terms of prioritizing mental health on the policy agenda, initiating interventions to reduce cost, and related access barriers, and overall improving and promoting the availability of community-based needed care.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is a global, technical, and normative agency that encourages research sets standards, and develops a wide range of advisory for governments and other stakeholders in its active Mental Health Division. The WHO through its division of the Plan of Action on Mental Health (PAHO), engages in the development and implementation of programs for the promotion and prevention of mental health systems and services. It then approves and adopts them through the World Health Assembly, an example is the adoption of the Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2020 by the 66th World Health Assembly, with a goal to promote further development of mental health policies across the world (Jenkins et al., 2011). These were broad strategies for mental health promotion, prevention of mental illness, promotion of rights, early childhood programs, life course skills, healthy working conditions, protection against child abuse, and domestic and community violence among others. In its 2001 Report, the WHO, functioned as a catalyst, setting out the rationale, with a broad framework for the development of mental health programmers (Jenkins et al., 2011).
References
Busch S. H. (2012). Implications of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. The American journal of psychiatry, 169(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11101543
Haffajee, R. L., Mello, M. M., Zhang, F., Busch, A. B., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Wharam, J. F. (2019). Association of Federal Mental Health Parity Legislation with Health Care Use and Spending Among High Utilizers of Services. Medical care, 57(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001076
Jenkins, R., Baingana, F., Ahmad, R., McDaid, D., & Atun, R. (2011). International and national policy challenges in mental health. Mental health in family medicine, 8(2), 101–114.
Keown, P., Murphy, H., McKenna, D., & McKinnon, I. (2018). Changes in the use of the Mental Health Act 1983 in England 1984/85 to 2015/16. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 213(4), 595-599. doi:10.1192/bjp.2018.123
Mills, J., & Phull, J. (2017). The Mental Health Act 1983. InnovAiT. 2017;10(11):638-643. doi:10.1177/1755738017727021
Mulvaney-Day, N., Gibbons, B. J., Alikhan, S., & Karakus, M. (2019). Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the Use of Outpatient Behavioral Health Services in the United States, 2005-2016. American journal of public health, 109(S3), S190–S196. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305023
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. |
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*. |
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*. |
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*. |
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 | 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. |
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. |
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 |
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 | 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. |
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 |
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. |
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 | 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. |
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;. |
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. |
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_8100_Week10_Discussion_Rubric
NURS 8100 Week 10: Nursing and Health Policy: The International Perspective Grading Rubric
| Performance Category | 100% or highest level of performance
100% 16 points |
Very good or high level of performance
88% 14 points |
Acceptable level of performance
81% 13 points |
Inadequate demonstration of expectations
68% 11 points |
Deficient level of performance
56% 9 points
|
Failing level
of performance 55% or less 0 points |
| Total Points Possible= 50 | 16 Points | 14 Points | 13 Points | 11 Points | 9 Points | 0 Points |
| Scholarliness
Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic topics. |
Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three or more of the following elements
|
| 16 Points | 14 Points | 13 Points | 11 Points | 9 Points | 0 Points | |
| Application of Course Knowledge
Demonstrate the ability to analyze and apply principles, knowledge and information learned in the outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations |
Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in the all of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements:
|
Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three of the following elements
|
| 10 Points | 9 Points | 6 Points | 0 Points | |||
| Interactive Dialogue
Initial post should be a minimum of 300 words (references do not count toward word count) The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each (references do not count toward word count) Responses are substantive and relate to the topic. |
Demonstrated all of the following:
|
Demonstrated 3 of the following:
|
Demonstrated 2 of the following:
|
Demonstrated 1 or less of the following:
|
||
| 8 Points | 7 Points | 6 Points | 5 Points | 4 Points | 0 Points | |
| Grammar, Syntax, APA
Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing. The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition Error is defined to be a unique APA error. Same type of error is only counted as one error. |
The following was present:
AND
AND
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
The following was present:
AND/OR
AND/OR
|
| 0 Points Deducted | 5 Points Lost | |||||
| Participation
Requirements |
Demonstrated the following:
|
Failed to demonstrate the following:
|
||||
| 0 Points Lost | 5 Points Lost | |||||
| Due Date Requirements | Demonstrated all of the following:
A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT. |
Demonstrates one or less of the following.
A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT. |
Also Check Out: NURS 8100 Week 9: State and Local Role in Health Care Policy