NURS 8302 Discussion Strategies for Building Effective Teams

NURS 8302 Discussion Strategies for Building Effective Teams

Sample Answer for NURS 8302 Discussion Strategies for Building Effective Teams Included After Question

You have been assigned to work on a team to support a new quality improvement initiative at your nursing practice. The initiative is designed to support and improve patient care, and the team is tasked with leading the initiative. The team is comprised of the best and the brightest the nursing practice has to offer, selecting only the leaders of each department. However, after the first team meeting, you discover the team dynamics might lead to more argument than action.

Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

If this concern manifests this early in the planning process of a quality improvement initiative, is this team the most effective for this task? What strategy might work best to ensure that the right team is composed for the task ahead?

Working in teams provides an important benefit to addressing a problem. A team can provide nuanced ideas and strategies that might be missed by working individually. Teams help to lessen the load on an individual, as well as provide different perspectives to spark ideas. However, working in teams is not without its challenges.

A mix of personalities, experiences, and styles can make or break a team, so what are the best ways to build an effective team? What strategies can be utilized to minimize any adverse effects of working in teams?

For this Discussion, consider what makes an effective team. What strategies might you use to build an effective team? Who might need to be included in a team? Consider the use of teams for quality improvement, and analyze what would make an effective team for a quality improvement initiative.

To Prepare:

• Review the Learning Resources for this week, and consider the potential impact and role of teams in quality improvement.

  

• Reflect on potential strategies for building effective teams in promoting quality improvement initiatives for nursing practice and/or healthcare organizations.
• Consider the type of stakeholders that might comprise these teams and potential challenges for “earning a seat at the table” of such a quality improvement team.

By Day 3 of Week 7

Post a brief explanation of a strategy you might recommend for building effective teams to support a quality improvement initiative in your healthcare organization or nursing practice. Be specific. Briefly describe the stakeholders you would recommend to make up this quality improvement team, and explain why. Be sure to define the roles of the members making up the quality improvement team. Then, explain any potential challenges or considerations you should keep in mind that may affect who might “earn a seat at the table” to comprise this team. Be specific and provide examples.

By Day 6 of Week 7

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by expanding upon your colleague’s post or offering an alternative strategy recommendation and/or alternative stakeholders to take part in the quality improvement team described by your colleague.

Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 7 Discussion Rubric

 

Post by Day 3 of Week 7 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 7

 

To Participate in this Discussion:

Week 7 Discussion

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 8302 Discussion Strategies for Building Effective Teams

Title: NURS 8302 Discussion Strategies for Building Effective Teams

Quality improvement (QI) is any systematic process that seeks to improve patient safety or clinical effectiveness in healthcare.  The QI team meets regularly to review performance data, identify areas needing improvement, and carry out and monitor improvement efforts using a variety of QI approaches and tools, consisting of the Model for Improvement (MFI), Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, workflow mapping, assessments, audit and feedback, benchmarking, and best practices research.

Knox and Brach (2015) state that the QI team members should include clinical leadership or an individual with the authority to test and implement a change and to problem-solve issues that arise in the process.  There should be numerous technical expertise, like experts in the QI process and experts in health information technology.  Day-day leadership should be in the team as the lead for the QI team, ensuring the completion of team tasks.  Project sponsorship has the executive authority and serves as the link to the QI team and organization’s senior management.  The QI team should have a clearly identified “practice champion” who is committed to the cause and ensures that the team functions effectively and fulfills its goals for the organization (Knox & Brach, 2015).  Other potential members of the QI team: physicians, nursing staff, as they probably will be the ones implementing the change after it has been approved; medical directors, pharmacy, case managers, directors of clinical services, and patients, as they will be the greatest critics for what is about to be implemented, etc.

A project manager might still find herself dealing with conflict even as ground rules are stated clearly.  Not all conflicts are bad, but it is essential to learn to deal with disputes professionally (Sipes, 2020).  Not all team members can get along, but everyone should act professionally and cordially with each other.  As a charge nurse, I do not always like everyone I work with, but since I still have to work with him/her, I act cordially unless he/she is acting completely rude.  I just ignore it and move along.  I still do not understand why people feel the need to be rude, but I try not to think about it too much.  I was told once by a wise old person that sometimes, people are just rude.  We should only worry about things we can change, and we cannot change how other people behave.

References:

Knox, L., & Brach, C. (2015). Module 20. Creating quality improvement teams and QI plansLinks to an external site.Links to an external site.. In, Primary care practice facilitation curriculumLinks to an external site.Links to an external site.. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/ncepcr/tools/PCMH/pcpf-module-20-creating-qi-teams.pdf

Nash, D. B., Joshi, M. S., Ransom, E. R., & Ransom, S. B. (Eds.). (2019). The healthcare quality book: Vision, strategy, and tools (4th ed.). Health Administration Press.

Sipes, C. (2020). Project management for the advanced practice nurse (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing Company.

A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: NURS 8302 Discussion Strategies for Building Effective Teams

Title: NURS 8302 Discussion Strategies for Building Effective Teams

Your insights into Quality Improvement (QI) strategies in healthcare are comprehensive and align well with established principles. The emphasis on systematic processes, regular performance reviews, and the utilization of various QI approaches and tools showcases a robust approach to enhancing patient safety and clinical effectiveness.

The composition of the QI team, as outlined by Knox and Brach (2015), is crucial for success. The inclusion of clinical leadership, technical experts, day-to-day leadership, project sponsorship, and a practice champion ensures a diverse skill set and authority within the team. This multifaceted team structure allows for effective problem-solving and implementation of changes.

Your acknowledgment of the potential for conflicts within the team is also insightful. Conflict resolution is a critical skill in project management. Your perspective on maintaining professionalism and cordiality, even in the face of interpersonal conflicts, is commendable. Focusing on aspects that can be changed and ignoring unnecessary rudeness aligns with a constructive approach to team dynamics.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the success of Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives in healthcare hinges on the meticulous application of systematic processes and a comprehensive team structure. The incorporation of various QI approaches and tools, coupled with a diverse team composition as suggested by Knox and Brach (2015), establishes a robust framework for addressing performance issues and implementing positive changes. The acknowledgment of potential conflicts within the team and the emphasis on maintaining professionalism and cordiality, even in challenging situations, reflect a nuanced understanding of effective project management. As demonstrated through the lens of a charge nurse’s perspective, the ability to focus on actionable aspects and navigate interpersonal dynamics contributes significantly to the overall success of QI endeavors. Through such strategic and people-oriented approaches, healthcare organizations can continually enhance patient safety and clinical effectiveness, fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

References 

Knox, L., & Brach, C. (2015). Module 20. Creating quality improvement teams and QI plans. In, Primary care practice facilitation curriculum. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/ncepcr/tools/PCMH/pcpf-module-20-creating-qi-teams.pdf

A Sample Answer 3 For the Assignment: NURS 8302 Discussion Strategies for Building Effective Teams

Title: NURS 8302 Discussion Strategies for Building Effective Teams

Introduction

Depending on the project or objective at hand, there are a wide variety of teams and teamwork styles. But generally speaking, productive teams have several essential characteristics. Team members must first be able to rely on and trust one another. They must be able to communicate honestly, collaborate well, and feel at ease providing and taking criticism. Effective communication is the second requirement for team members (Keogh et al., 2019). This entails not just verbally communicating but also recognizing and reacting effectively to nonverbal cues like body language and tone of voice. This talk aims to clarify methods for creating cohesive teams that can aid in a healthcare organization’s quality improvement program.

Strategies for building an effective team

Effective teams can be formed using a wide range of techniques. Among the most crucial ones are assembling a team with the appropriate blend of expertise and experience, defining precise goals and objectives, and developing a solid team culture. Ensuring that team members can rely on one another and collaborate well is also crucial. Setting expectations for how team members should interact with one another and creating a favorable work atmosphere are two ways to do this (Von Knorring et al., 2020). Ultimately, it’s critical to give team members regular feedback so they may keep honing their cooperation abilities. Building an efficient team capable of doing various activities is essential for leading a quality improvement project intended to support and enhance patient care (Von Knorring et al., 2020). When I’m putting together a team to support a quality improvement effort at my healthcare business, as a leader, there are a few important considerations I will make. Initially, I will choose people who possess the abilities and expertise needed to complete the job successfully. Secondly, I’ll make sure that everyone in the team gets along well and communicates well with one another. Lastly, I’ll designate some team leaders who may offer counsel and direction when required.

Type of stakeholders that might comprise these teams

A variety of stakeholders who can offer advice and encouragement for the quality improvement project will be on the quality improvement team. Senior management, operations, clinical staff, information technology, marketing, and financial personnel are among the important stakeholders. Every one of these groups contributes a distinct viewpoint to quality enhancement and can guarantee that the endeavor is pertinent and significant for the company (Masimula et al., 2021). Senior management will oversee the initiative’s strategic direction and support, and operations personnel will make sure that the organization’s daily activities align with its quality improvement objectives. Marketing informs internal and external stakeholders of the importance of quality improvements, clinical staff offers suggestions on how to improve patient care, information technology facilitates process improvement through data analysis and automation, and finance makes sure that funding is available for the quality improvement project.

Potential Challenges and Considerations

The possible influence of team composition on the group’s capacity to accomplish its objectives is one difficulty to bear in mind while trying to assemble a quality improvement team. To be more precise, some people might contribute particular knowledge or abilities that advance the cause, whilst others might be more likely to obstruct change or instigate conflict (Masimula et al., 2021). Therefore, it’s critical to take a variety of elements into account when assembling a quality improvement team to guarantee that all opinions are heard and that the finest choices are chosen. A few important factors to take into account are: – The team’s diversity in terms of backgrounds, experiences, and skill sets; – The distribution of authority among team members; and – The alignment of each member’s goals with the team’s overall objectives. For instance, clinical staff members must to be highly knowledgeable about medical procedures and treatment in general.

References

Keogh, T. J., Robinson, J. C., & Parnell, J. M. (2019). Assessing behavioral styles among nurse managers: Implications for leading effective teams.

Hospital Topics,97(1), 32-38.https://doi.org/10.1080/00185868.2018.1563460

Masimula, Q. K., van der Wath, A., & Coetzee, I. (2021). Promoting a person-centered workplace culture in a public nursing education institution in South Africa by fostering effective teamwork amongst nurse educators.NurseEducationToday,99,104783.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104783

Von Knorring, M., Griffiths, P., Ball, J., Runesdotter, S., & Lindqvist, R. (2020). Patient experience of communication consistency amongst staff is related to nurse-physician teamwork in hospitals. Nursing Open,7(2), 613-617.https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.431

Rubric Detail

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

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8302 Discussion Strategies for Building Effective Teams

Content

Name: NURS_8302_Week7_Discussion_Rubric

• Grid View
• List View

		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.		Points Range: 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.	Points Range: 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.	Points Range: 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.	Points Range: 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		Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.	Points Range: 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		Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date.	Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date.	Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date.	Points Range: 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.		Points Range: 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.	Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.	Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
First Response: Writing		Points Range: 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.	Points Range: 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.	Points Range: 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.	Points Range: 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		Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.	Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.	Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date.	Points Range: 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.		Points Range: 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.	Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.	Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Second Response: Writing		Points Range: 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.	Points Range: 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.	Points Range: 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.	Points Range: 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		Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.	Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.	Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8302 Discussion Strategies for Building Effective Teams