STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING EFFECTIVE TEAMS NURS 8302
Sample Answer for STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING EFFECTIVE TEAMS NURS 8302 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!
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING EFFECTIVE TEAMS NURS 8302
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
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING EFFECTIVE TEAMS NURS 8302
Title: STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING EFFECTIVE TEAMS NURS 8302
In the healthcare industry, implementing effective team-building strategies is crucial to ensuring the success of a quality improvement program. One recommended course of action is to thoroughly assess the person’s skills, competencies, and communication styles within the team. This may be achieved through team-building activities, interviews, and personality assessments. Understanding each team member’s advantages and disadvantages makes it possible to assemble a varied group of people with complementary skills.
A quality improvement team must include stakeholders from all departments to guarantee a complete perspective. Frontline nurses, doctors, administrative staff, and quality assurance specialists might need to be included in this. It’s critical to specify each member’s role precisely and ensure their responsibilities correspond to their experience. Quality assurance specialists may contribute their skills in data analysis and measurement, while frontline nurses can provide essential insights into day-to-day operations (Ten Dam, & Waardenburg, 2020).
Even with the greatest of care in selecting the most extraordinary individuals, unanticipated problems might still arise. One challenge that emerges is managing conflicting opinions and even arguments amongst forceful people in leadership roles. To address this problem, it is essential to establish clear channels of communication, foster an environment of respect for one another, and implement practical dispute-resolution techniques (Morozov, 2023). Moreover, ongoing instruction in effective leadership and teamwork skills may improve the coherence and cooperation in the environment.
All things considered, building an effective quality improvement team requires assessing each team member’s distinct skills, clearly defining roles, and incorporating a variety of perspectives (Hibbert et al., 2021). To ensure positive team dynamics, communication, and conflict resolution strategies must be used to resolve any issues.
References:
Hibbert, P. D., Basedow, M., Braithwaite, J., Wiles, L. K., Clay-Williams, R., & Padbury, R. (2021). How to sustainably build capacity in quality improvement within a healthcare organisation: a deep-dive, focused qualitative analysis. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 1-13.
Morozov, E. (2023). Nurturing Relationships through Online Dispute Resolution, Information and Communication Technologies, and Social Media. Communication for Constructive Workplace Conflict, 211.
Ten Dam, E. M., & Waardenburg, M. (2020). Logic fluidity: How frontline professionals use institutional logics in their day-to-day work. Journal of Professions and Organization, 7(2), 188-204.
A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING EFFECTIVE TEAMS NURS 8302
Title: STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING EFFECTIVE TEAMS NURS 8302
Your discussion regarding team-building strategies was on target. Including frontline nurses on the quality improvement team is essential when introducing new interventions to the care environment. Even if it does not directly involve nursing care, gaining buy-in from the nursing staff is imperative if the change impacts the patient (Tavernier et al., 2018). This is why I encourage staff nurse participation in all quality improvement projects.
Being able to assess a person’s skills, competencies, and communication style to participate on a quality improvement team may not be feasible from a time and financial perspective. I like your idea of conducting interviews and administering personality assessments for “fit” within the team, but we often don’t have the luxury of an evaluation period. In reality, we identify a gap in practice and must put together a plan and a team to address the issue immediately. What I have found to work is creating a team of energetic and passionate people committed to person-centered care. I look for participants who are risk-takers and who are willing to change practice for quality improvement. The enthusiasm and “can do” attitude are essential when looking at new and untried processes that will improve outcomes and decrease harm.
Alexander et al. (2021) identified leadership support as having a significant role in creating a culture of participation in quality improvement efforts. Staff are more interested in actively participating in practice changes if they view their leaders as partners. In addition, creating a just culture within the organization is another indicator that the organization supports openness and transparency when designing and implementing change.
References
Alexander, C., Tschannen, D., Argetsinger, D., Hakim, H., & Milner, K. A. (2021). A qualitative study on barriers and facilitators of quality improvement engagement by frontline nurses and leaders. Journal of Nursing Management, 30 (3), 694-701. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13537
Tavernier, S. S., Guo, J-W., Eaton, J., Brant, J. M., Berry, P., & Beck, S. L. (2018). Context matters for nurses leading pain improvement in U. S. hospitals. Pain Management Nursing, 19 (5), 474-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmn.2018.05.003
A Sample Answer 3 For the Assignment: STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING EFFECTIVE TEAMS NURS 8302
Title: STRATEGIES FOR BUILDING EFFECTIVE TEAMS NURS 8302
An alternative strategy recommendation to enhance team-building in healthcare quality improvement programs is the incorporation of continuous training programs focused on interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence. While skills and competencies are crucial, harboring strong interpersonal relationships can further improve team cohesion. Training sessions that emphasize effective communication, active listening, and empathy can contribute to a more supportive and collaborative team environment (Dixon-Woods et al., 2021).
In addition to the suggested stakeholders, it could be beneficial to include patients or patient representatives in the quality improvement team. Their perspective offers a unique insight into the actual experiences and outcomes of healthcare services. Patient involvement aligns with the patient-centered care approach and ensures that the quality improvement initiatives directly address the needs and expectations of the individuals receiving healthcare services (Robert et al., 2020).
By expanding the team to include patients or their representatives and incorporating continuous training in interpersonal skills, healthcare organizations can create a more comprehensive and patient-focused approach to quality improvement.
References
Dixon-Woods, M., McNicol, S., & Martin, G. (2021). Ten challenges in improving quality in healthcare: lessons from the Health Foundation’s programme evaluations and relevant literature. BMJ Quality & Safety, 30(1), 30-38.
Robert, G., Cornwell, J., & Locock, L. (2020). Purification and pollution in the English National Health Service: the dialectics of transparency and accountability. Health, Risk & Society, 22(1), 5-22.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_8302_Week7_Discussion_Rubric
| Excellent
90–100 |
Good
80–89 |
Fair
70–79 |
Poor
: 0–69 |
||
| Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. |
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 | |||||
Name: NURS_8302_Week7_Discussion_Rubric