responses!

1

Instructions:

Read a selection of your classmates’ posts and respond to at least two of your classmates on two different days by expanding upon their reflections, making connections to your perceptions, and offering additional insights.

Note: Your responses to classmates should be substantial (250 words minimum), supported with scholarly evidence from your research and/or the Learning Resources, and properly cited using APA Style. Personal anecdotes are acceptable as part of a meaningful response, but cannot stand alone as a response. Your responses should enrich the initial post by supporting and/or offering a fresh viewpoint, and be constructive, thereby enhancing the learning experience for all students.

Rubric:

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)	20 to >19.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day. 19 to >15.0 ptsGoodDiscussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day. 15 to >12.0 ptsFairDiscussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day. 12 to >0 ptsPoorDiscussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day.	20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)	20 to >19.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day. 19 to >15.0 ptsGoodDiscussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day. 15 to >12.0 ptsFairDiscussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day. 12 to >0 ptsPoorDiscussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day.	20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)	10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 9 to >8.0 ptsGoodDiscussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 8 to >6.0 ptsFairDiscussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 6 to >0 ptsPoorDiscussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	10 pts

Total Points: 100

Post 1:

Hello,

Tzeng and Yin’s (2017) multihospital survey represents traditional research aimed at producing generalizable knowledge. By including multiple hospitals and a broader participant base, the study strengthens external validity and allows findings on fall-prevention strategies to be applied across settings. Sampling is typically systematic or stratified to enhance representativeness. Ethical protections are rigorous, requiring Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, informed consent, and strict confidentiality measures (Kandi & Vadakedath, 2022).

Khoja and Moosa’s (2023) QI initiative focused on implementing tailored interventions for patient safety within a specific clinical setting. Generalizability is limited because the goal is local improvement rather than universal application. Sampling is usually convenience-based, involving patients and staff within the organization. Ethical oversight is less formal than in research, as many QI projects qualify for expedited review or exemption. However, patient privacy, data security, and minimizing harm remain essential ethical priorities (Pearlman et al., 2025).

Bangura’s (2024) DNP project combines elements of both approaches. It evaluates an intentional rounding strategy in a veterans’ long-term care facility, emphasizing practice change within a defined setting. Sampling is pragmatic and site-specific, and generalizability is limited but may offer transferable insights. Ethical protections often include IRB determination, though requirements may be less strict than for research. Safeguards focus on confidentiality, risk reduction, and responsible data use (Pearlman et al., 2025).

In comparing ethical considerations, research demands stricter oversight due to its aim of generating new knowledge. It requires explicit informed consent and comprehensive risk-benefit analysis (Kandi & Vadakedath, 2022). On the other hand, QI and DNP projects prioritize improving existing care processes, often integrating interventions into routine practice. As a result, consent processes may be simplified or waived, though transparency and patient protection remain critical (Pearlman et al., 2025). Overall, while all three uphold core ethical principles, research involves more formal regulation, whereas QI and DNP projects emphasize practical, context-driven ethical application.

References

Bangura, F. (2024). Development and Evaluation of a Nurse Practitioner–Directed Intentional Rounding Strategy, and Its Impact on Decreasing Falls in a Veterans Long-Term Care Facility. Wilmington University (Delaware).

Kandi, V., & Vadakedath, S. (2022). Ethical considerations in clinical research: a comprehensive review. American Journal of Public Health Research, 10(2), 42-52. DOI:10.12691/ajphr-10-2-2 

Khoja, A., & Moosa, L. (2023). Impact of tailored interventions for patient safety (TIPS) to reduce fall rates. Medsurg Nursing, 32(2), 89-93.

Pearlman, S. A., Murray, P. D., & Bapat, R. (2025). Ethical considerations in quality improvement. Journal of Perinatology, 1-6.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-025-02403-0 Links to an external site.  

Tzeng, H. M., & Yin, C. Y. (2017). A multihospital survey on effective interventions to prevent hospital falls in adults. Nursing Economics, 35(6), 304-314. 

Post 2:

When analyzing past and present methods for research, quality improvement (QI), and Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) projects, ethics play a crucial role in nursing inquiry. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study is a sobering reminder of what happens when moral safeguards are disregarded. On the other hand, contemporary research like Bangura (2024), Tzeng and Yin (2017), and Khoja and Moosa (2023) shows organized ethical supervision.

The goal of Tzeng and Yin's (2017) study is to generate results that may be applied to larger populations by emphasizing generalizability through systematic sampling. Larger, randomized samples are usually used in research investigations to improve external validity. Institutional Review Board (IRB) permission, informed consent, and participant autonomy preservation are examples of ethical safeguards. The QI study by Khoja and Moosa (2023), on the other hand, has limited generalizability because it concentrates on enhancing procedures inside a particular company. Convenience-based sampling that focuses on a particular unit or group is common. IRB approval may still be required for ethical oversight, but it is frequently done under accelerated or exempt status because the goal is to enhance care locally rather than produce generalizable knowledge.

Similarly, Bangura's (2024) DNP initiative addresses clinical issues like staffing shortages and their effects on patient outcomes by utilizing evidence-based solutions. Like QI studies, DNP initiatives are not primarily intended for generalization and instead employ smaller, focused samples (Reynolds et al.,2026). However, depending on institutional norms, they still need ethical safeguards, such as site approval, confidentiality measures, and occasionally IRB monitoring.

Because research projects aim to contribute to generalizable information, they require the highest level of protection when it comes to ethical considerations. This entails rigorous adherence to participant rights, risk reduction, and informed consent. While still morally sound, QI and DNP initiatives put patient safety and system enhancement first, frequently with more lax oversight. The Tuskegee study emphasizes the importance of the ethics pledge and the duty of healthcare workers to maintain fairness, beneficence, and respect in all types of research.

 

References

Bangura, F. (2024).  Development and evaluation of a nurse practitioner–directed intentional rounding strategy, and its impact on decreasing falls in a veterans long-term care facilityLinks to an external site. Links to an external site.  (Publication No. 30991997) [Doctoral dissertation, Wilmington University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Khoja, A., & Moosa, L. (2023).  Impact of tailored interventions for patient safety (TIPS) to reduce fall ratesLinks to an external site. Links to an external site. . MEDSURG Nursing, 32(2), 89–93.

Reynolds, S. S., Waldrop, J. B., & Dunlap, J. J. (2026). Misalignment between research and quality improvement terminology in published nursing reports: A descriptive study. Nursing Outlook, 74(3), 102774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2026.102774

Tzeng, H.-M., & Yin, C.-Y. (2017).  A multihospital survey on effective interventions to prevent hospital falls in adultsLinks to an external site. Links to an external site. . Nursing Economics, 35(6), 304–313.