West Coast University Health & Medical Paper

West Coast University Health & Medical Paper

West Coast University Health & Medical Paper

Description

Decision-Making Paper Instructions

In this assignment, you will be writing a 1,500-2,000 word essay describing the differing approaches of nursing leaders and staff nurses/clinical practitioners to issues in practice. To complete this assignment, do the following:

  1. Select an issue from the following list: nursing shortage and nurse turn-over, nurse staffing ratios, unit closures and restructuring, use of contract employees (i.e., registry and travel nurses), continuous quality improvement and patient satisfaction, and magnet designation.

Compare and contrast how you would expect nursing leaders and staff nurses/clinical practitioners to approach your selected issue. Support your rationale by using the theories and relational inquiry principles described in your textbook readings.

Identify the approach that best fits your personal and professional philosophy of nursing and explain why the approach is suited to your personal inquiry style.

West Coast University Health & Medical Paper
West Coast University Health & Medical Paper

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:West Coast University Health & Medical Paper

Identify a possible funding source that addresses your issue. Consider looking at federal, state, and local organizations. For example: There are many grants available through the CDC, HRSA, etc.

RUBRIC FOR DECISION-MAKING PAPER—100 points total Note: grading between increments is at the discretion of the faculty CATEGORY Exemplary (A) Good (B) Introduction/Topic Exceptional introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic. Thesis/topic is exceptionally clear, well-developed, and a definitive statement. Proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. Thesis/topic is clear and arguable statement of position. Basic introduction that states topic but lacks interest. Thesis/topic is somewhat clear and arguable. Weak or no introduction of topic. Paper’s purpose is unclear. Thesis/topic is weak or missing. Paper is exceptionally researched, contains 3 or more sources total other than textbook); the sources support the introduction and topic in a logical manner. References correctly cited. Information relates to the main topic. Paper, is well-researched in detail and from 3 or more good sources other than textbook. References correctly cited. Information relates to the main topic, but few details and/or examples are given. Shows a limited variety of sources. References are not cited correctly. Information has little or nothing to do with the topic. Information has weak or no connection to the selected topic. References not cited correctly. Exceptionally critical, relevant and consistent connections made in comparison/contrast of both approaches between leaders and clinicians. Excellent analysis and assessment of personal approach, philosophy, and funding sources. Consistent connections are made in comparison/contrast of both approaches between leaders and clinicians. Good analysis and assessment of personal approach, philosophy, and funding sources. Some connections made in comparison/contrast of both approaches between leaders and clinicians. Some analysis and assessment of personal approach, philosophy, and funding sources Excellent summary of theory including its strengths and limitations. Introduces no new information. Good summary of theory including its strengths and limitations with concluding ideas. No new information. Basic summary theory including its strengths and limitations with some concluding ideas. Introduces no new information. Limited or no connections made in comparison/contrast of both approaches between leaders and clinicians. Lackanalysis and assessment of personal approach, philosophy, and funding sources. Lack of summary of theory including its strengths and limitations. Writing is clear and relevant, with no grammatical and/or spelling errors – polished and professional. Reference, citations and images are properly formatted. References sufficiently and succinctly summarize, evaluate, and reflect on the source. Paper contains 1.5002000 words or more. Most ideas are stated clearly and are related to the topic, with only minor grammatical and/or spelling errors. References, citations and images are adequate. References sufficiently and adequately summarize, evaluate, and reflect on the source. Paper contains 1.500-2000 words. Many ideas require clarification, are off-topic or have little relevance to the assignment. Many grammatical and/or spelling errors; very challenging to read, poor writing flow. Improper references and/or citations section. Some references provide inadequate summary, evaluation, and/or reflection. Paper contains 1.500 words. _10___ points Content knowledge: Quality of Research _20___ points Content application: Analysis & Assessment _40___ points Conclusion _25___ points Writing/ APA Format 5___ points Total: ____100_/100 Acceptable (C) Unacceptable (D/F) Paper does not meet the criteria for the assignment (too short or incomplete, too long, and/or completely offtopic). Reference, citations and images section is missing. Most references provide inadequate summary, evaluation, and/or reflection. Paper does not contain 1.500-2000 words.

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Postinga 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

 

One or 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.

 

Post is cited with two credible sources.

 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

 

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 sources.

 

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 Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are 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.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are 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.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Total Points: 100