leadership

profilecloudia
readtheANA.docx

 1. Read the ANA's Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements (2015)

American Nurses Association. (2015). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements.  Washington, DC:  Author.

      2. Read one of the following articles as assigned by your instructor.

· Substance Abuse  read:  Substance Abuse-A CaseStudy Brown, L.A. (2016). Substance Abuse. A case study. Nursing2016 46(6), 58-61. 

Reflect on the article you were assigned to read and respond to the following questions:

1. What was the author’s central message, or main ideas/concepts they were trying to convey to the reader?What are the ethical implications related to the issue you read about?  What ethical principle would apply?  Use assigned readings from this week to support your discussion. 

2. What are the legal implications related to the issue you read about?  Use assigned readings from this week to support your discussion.

3. As a nurse leader, if faced with the issue you just described, how difficult would it be for you to address the issue with one of your staff or colleagues?  What standards and/or laws would support the action you took, or didn’t take, and what is the outcome you would hope to achieve? 

Rubric

Criteria Exemplary Satisfactory Needs Improvement Unacceptable Quality of Initial Posting

Initial Posting includes all components and meets or exceeds all requirements indicated in the discussion prompt. Thoroughly synthesizes, analyzes, and integrates relevant ideas from assigned readings and/or scholarly literature and cites source. Initial posting is 250-300 words. (8 pts)

Initial posting/response includes all components and meets all requirements indicated in the instructions. Each question or part of the discussion prompt is addressed. Displays basis synthesis, analysis, or integration of ideas from the readings and/or scholarly literature and sites source. Initial posting is 250-300 words. (5 pts)

Initial posting is missing some components and/or does not fully meet the requirements indicated in the discussion prompt. Displays incomplete integration or understanding of course readings or does not integrate course readings or other scholarly literature into posting. Initial posting is less than 250 words (2 pts)

No initial posting. (0 pts)

Quality of Peer Responses

Reply posting(s) builds on the ideas of other students, contributes to developing new discussion and deepening the discussion. Responses are supported by course readings and/or other scholarly literature Required peer responses are 150- 200 words. (5 pts)

Reply posting(s) show an understanding of the ideas of other students, but may be restrictive in developing new discussion or deepening the discussion. Required response(s) are supported by course readings and/or other scholarly literature Required peer responses are 150-200 each. (3 pts)

Reply posting(s) show basic agreement or restatement of the students’ ideas, but do not develop or contribute to new discussion. There is a lack of support from the course readings or other scholarly literature. Required peer responses are less than 150 words. (1 pt)

No peer response. (0 pt)

Structure Writing is clear, concise, and well organized with excellent sentence/paragraph construction. Thoughts are expressed in a coherent and logical manner. There are no more than three spelling, grammar, syntax errors, or APA errors with in-text citations and references. (2 pts)

Writing is mostly clear, concise, and well organized with good sentence/paragraph construction. Thoughts are expressed in a coherent and logical manner. There are no more than five spelling, grammar, syntax errors, or APA errors with in-text citations and references. For audio/video discussion post: Discussion post is somewhat clear, organized, and articulate. Credits author/source in discussion. (1 pt)

Writing is unclear and/or disorganized. Thoughts are not expressed in a logical manner. There are more than five spelling, grammar, syntax errors or APA errors with in-text citations and references. For audio/video discussion post: Discussion post is unclear, and/or unorganized. Does not credit author/source in discussion. (.25 pts)

No posting (0 pt)

Rubric Criteria Exemplary Satisfactory Needs Improvement Unacceptable

Quality of Initial

Posting

Initial Posting includes all

components and meets or exceeds

all requirements indicated in the

discussion prompt. Thoroughly

synthesizes, analyzes, and

integrates relevant ideas from

assigned readings and/or scholarly

literature and cites source. Initial

posting is 250-300 words.

(8 pts)

Initial posting/response includes all

components and meets all

requirements indicated in the

instructions. Each question or part

of the discussion prompt is

addressed. Displays basis synthesis,

analysis, or integration of ideas

from the readings and/or scholarly

literature and sites source. Initial

posting is 250-300 words.

(5 pts)

Initial posting is missing some

components and/or does not fully

meet the requirements indicated

in the discussion prompt. Displays

incomplete integration or

understanding of course readings

or does not integrate course

readings or other scholarly

literature into posting. Initial

posting is less than 250 words

(2 pts)

No initial posting. (0 pts)

Quality of Peer

Responses

Reply posting(s) builds on the

ideas of other students,

contributes to developing new

discussion and deepening the

discussion. Responses are

supported by course readings

and/or other scholarly literature

Required peer responses are 150-

200 words.

(5 pts)

Reply posting(s) show an

understanding of the ideas of other

students, but may be restrictive in

developing new discussion or

deepening the discussion. Required

response(s) are supported by

course readings and/or other

scholarly literature Required peer

responses are 150-200 each.

(3 pts)

Reply posting(s) show basic

agreement or restatement of the

students’ ideas, but do not

develop or contribute to new

discussion. There is a lack of

support from the course readings

or other scholarly literature.

Required peer responses are less

than 150 words.

(1 pt)

No peer response. (0 pt)

Structure

Writing is clear, concise, and well

organized with excellent

sentence/paragraph construction.

Thoughts are expressed in a

coherent and logical manner.

There are no more than three

spelling, grammar, syntax errors,

or APA errors with in-text citations

and references.

(2 pts)

Writing is mostly clear, concise, and

well organized with good

sentence/paragraph construction.

Thoughts are expressed in a

coherent and logical manner. There

are no more than five spelling,

grammar, syntax errors, or APA

errors with in-text citations and

references.

For audio/video discussion post:

Discussion post is somewhat clear,

organized, and articulate. Credits

author/source in discussion.

(1 pt)

Writing is unclear and/or

disorganized. Thoughts are not

expressed in a logical manner.

There are more than five spelling,

grammar, syntax errors or APA

errors with in-text citations and

references.

For audio/video discussion post:

Discussion post is unclear, and/or

unorganized. Does not credit

author/source in discussion.

(.25 pts)

No posting (0 pt)

Rubric

Criteria

Exemplary

Satisfactory

Needs Improvement

Unacceptable

Quality of Initial Posting

Initial Posting includes all components and meets or exceeds all requirements indicated in the discussion prompt. Thoroughly synthesizes, analyzes, and integrates relevant ideas from assigned readings and/or scholarly literature and cites source. Initial posting is 250-300 words.

(8 pts)

Initial posting/response includes all components and meets all requirements indicated in the instructions. Each question or part of the discussion prompt is addressed. Displays basis synthesis, analysis, or integration of ideas from the readings and/or scholarly literature and sites source. Initial posting is 250-300 words.

(5 pts)

Initial posting is missing some components and/or does not fully meet the requirements indicated in the discussion prompt. Displays incomplete integration or understanding of course readings or does not integrate course readings or other scholarly literature into posting. Initial posting is less than 250 words

(2 pts)

No initial posting. (0 pts)

Quality of Peer Responses

Reply posting(s) builds on the ideas of other students, contributes to developing new discussion and deepening the discussion. Responses are supported by course readings and/or other scholarly literature Required peer responses are 150-200 words.

(5 pts)

Reply posting(s) show an understanding of the ideas of other students, but may be restrictive in developing new discussion or deepening the discussion. Required response(s) are supported by course readings and/or other scholarly literature Required peer responses are 150-200 each.

(3 pts)

Reply posting(s) show basic agreement or restatement of the students’ ideas, but do not develop or contribute to new discussion. There is a lack of support from the course readings or other scholarly literature. Required peer responses are less than 150 words.

(1 pt)

No peer response. (0 pt)

Structure

Writing is clear, concise, and well organized with excellent sentence/paragraph construction. Thoughts are expressed in a coherent and logical manner. There are no more than three spelling, grammar, syntax errors, or APA errors with in-text citations and references.

(2 pts)

Writing is mostly clear, concise, and well organized with good sentence/paragraph construction. Thoughts are expressed in a coherent and logical manner. There are no more than five spelling, grammar, syntax errors, or APA errors with in-text citations and references.

For audio/video discussion post: Discussion post is somewhat clear, organized, and articulate. Credits author/source in discussion.

(1 pt)

Writing is unclear and/or disorganized. Thoughts are not expressed in a logical manner. There are more than five spelling, grammar, syntax errors or APA errors with in-text citations and references.

For audio/video discussion post: Discussion post is unclear, and/or unorganized. Does not credit author/source in discussion.

(.25 pts)

No posting (0 pt)

Reviewed 02.2020