POLICY ANALYSIS SUMMARY NURS 8100

Sample Answer for POLICY ANALYSIS SUMMARY NURS 8100 Included After Question

Health care policy can facilitate or impede the delivery of services. For the past several weeks, you have been engaging in an authentic activity by critically analyzing a specific health care policy and various aspects of the impact associated with its implementation. A critical step in the policy process is communicating your findings with others. This week, you will share information from your policy analysis and its implications.

To prepare:

Briefly summarize your policy analysis, focusing on the implications for clinical practice that may be most relevant or interesting for your colleagues. Include how evidence-based practice influenced the policy, policy options, or solutions.

By Day 3

Post a 1- to 2-paragraph succinct summary of your policy analysis paper. Include at least two of the options or solutions for addressing the policy and the resulting implications for nursing practice and health care consumers.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

By Day 5

Respond to at least two of your colleagues sharing insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence, and the practice implications of the policy.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: POLICY ANALYSIS SUMMARY NURS 8100

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

Week 11 Discussion 1 Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 5

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 11 Discussion 1

Week in Review

In this final week, you assessed implications of various policy options and solutions of health care and nursing practice and outlined evidence that supports suggested options and solutions to a policy issue. You also proposed and advocacy strategy that nurses may employ to address a practice issue through the policy process.

Congratulations! After you have finished all of the assignments for this week, you have completed the course. Please submit your Course Evaluation by Day 7.

POLICY ANALYSIS SUMMARY NURS 8100

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: POLICY ANALYSIS SUMMARY NURS 8100

Title: POLICY ANALYSIS SUMMARY NURS 8100

The policy I addressed was the Title VIII Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act of 2019. This policy/bill expands and empowers nursing workforce development programs through FY2024 (Congress, n.d.). This bill builds on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2010) report that recommends nurses should achieve higher levels of education and training through an improved education system that promotes seamless academic progress. This policy/bill was first passed in 2017 and has required significant nursing leadership advocation. I utilized a framework by Fawcette and Russell (2001) to look at social, ethical, legal, and financial impacts of the policy.

Numerous options/solutions for addressing the policy were addressed including no change, partial change, and a radical change. A partial solution to the barrier of nursing education funding would be the proposal of the Title VIII Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act. This could encourage the standardization of nursing programs and create one uniform degree requirement for entry level nursing. Nurses could also access clear instructions on how to advance their degree with various clinical pathways outlined. This solution requires nursing leaders to be a strong advocate both in policy reform and nursing organizations to fill the gap until a more radical solution could be proposed. This can positively impact the nursing practice as it increases nurse education dollars and could improve staff to patient radios for improved patient outcomes. A radical change to address the nursing education pipeline would be providing free four-year education at a public university. This would take significant funding from taxpayers and bipartisan support. This radical solution would require nursing leaders to be highly involved in nursing legislature to ensure the solution was implemented. The cost of this radical option could be exorbitant and would require significant dedication, consensus, and support to obtain. The impact to the nursing profession as a result of this solution is unknown but one can posit that it would increase the number of healthcare professionals entering the field, improve staffing ratios and ultimately positively impact patient and organizational outcomes.

References

Congress. (n.d.). H.R. 728 Title VIII Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act of 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/728

Fawcette, J., & Russell, G. (2001). A conceptual model of nursing and health policy. Policy, Politics, & Nursing, 2(2), 108-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/152715440100200205

Institute of Medicine (2010). The future of nursing: Leading change, advancing health.

A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: POLICY ANALYSIS SUMMARY NURS 8100

Title: POLICY ANALYSIS SUMMARY NURS 8100

The purpose of this discussion post is to provide information on a health care topic of interest to policy makers. The policy brief development around staff staffing for our hospitals is a point of interest that should be brought to attention on a larger scale. The writer would like to discussion Michigan specifically regarding safe staffing in hospitals. The problem is there is no law in Michigan, that limits the number of patients a registered nurse can be assigned or the number of hours registered nurses are forced to work.

Some ICU’s in Michigan, a registered nurse may have up to four patients at a time but in other Michigan hospitals the registered nurse may have a limit of one to two. “The risk of dying in the ICU increases by a factor of 3.5 when the patient-to-nurse ratio is greater than 2.5 to 1” (Neuraz et al., 2015). Registered nurses are reporting that their workload is rarely or never adjusted when they report having an unsafe assignment. Michigan hospitals do not have to disclose current staffing levels. Registered nurses can be fired for refusing to work longer hours because administration classifies this as patient abandonment – this could also lead to the nurse losing their license. Scientific studies provide evidence of the link between inadequate registered nurse staffing and poor outcomes for hospital patients. Evidence supports: “The risk of death from cardiac arrest in the hospital is nearly 20% higher on the night shift, when RN staffing typically lower” (Peberdy et al., 2008). Additionally, not only do patients have a higher risk of dying of cardiac arrest due to staffing they also have an increase risk of getting an infection during their hospital stay. “Patients cared for in hospitals with higher RN staffing were 68% less likely to acquire infections” (Rogowski et al., 2013).

The involvement of Michigan Nurse Association has been a positive push towards the resolution of the staffing issues that Michigan hospitals have. The primary two things that MNA has done to support the Safe Patient Care Act: Connect members with legislators to share their stories and grown bipartisan support for the legislation and recruited the most cosponsors in the legislation’s history. The bipartisan Safe Patient Care Act is a plan to increase the safety of patients in Michigan hospitals and retain our nurses in an already stressful environment. The issue at hand is that there is no law that limits the number of patients a registered nurse can be assigned to take care of in the hospital. This is not only alarming nut is very unsafe for both the patient and nurse. There is also no law to prevent hospitals from making nurses work unlimited hours (leading to shifts of 14, 16 or even 20 hours). Nurses are becoming exhausted and stressed which increases the risk of mistakes and errors which is a very dangerous situation. Quality care and patient advocacy is a priority of the registered nurse. Understaffing and being overworked leads to unplanned events such as falls, infections, medication errors and deaths. There is a solution to lowering these risks and making a safer environment for our patients and registered nurses. “The Michigan Safe Patient Care Act is a 3-part bipartisan package in the state House and Senate that addresses rampant RN understaffing and excessive forced RN overtime. It will force administrators to make decisions based on patients’ needs, rather than misguided cost-cutting in the hospital industry” (MI Nurse Association, 2021).

The solution is the Michigan Safe Patient Care Act! The Michigan Safe Patient Care Act is a 3-part bipartisan package in the state House and Senate that addresses rampant RN understaffing and excessive forced RN overtime. It will force administrators to make decisions based on patients’ needs, rather than misguided cost-cutting in the hospital industry.

References

Lavis, J. N., Permanand, G., Oxman, A. D., Lewin, S., & Fretheim, A. (2009). SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Research Policy & Systems, Health Research Policy & Systems, 71–79.

MI Nurse Association. (2021). The bipartisan Safe Patient Care Act. https://www.misaferhospitals.org/uploads/7/7/1/1/7711851/with_bill_numbers_2021_spca_bills_cheat_sheet.pdf

Neuraz, A., Guérin, C., Polazzi, S., Aubrun, F., Dailler, F., Lehot, J.-J., Piriou, V., Neidecker, J., Rimmelé, T., Schott, A.-M., & Duclos, A. (2015). Patient Mortality Is Associated With Staff Resources and Workload in the ICU: A Multicenter Observational Study. Critical Care Medicine, 43. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000001015

Peberdy, M. A., Ornato, J., Larkin, G. L., Braithwaite, R. S., Kashner, T. M., Carey, S., Meaney, P., Cen, L., Nadkarni, V., Praestgaard, A., & Berg, R. (2008). Survival From In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest During Nights and Weekends. JAMA. http://www.protectmasspatients.org/pdf/JAMA_2_08_Cardiac_Arrest.pdf

Rogowski, J. A., Staiger, D., Patrick, T., Horbar, J., Kenny, M., & Lake, E. T. (2013). Nurse staffing and NICU infection rates. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(5), 444–450

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

Name: NURS_8100_Week11_Discussion1_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.	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

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