Transforming Nursing

profileTinacherry100$
WK.2._1.RESPONSES.TransformingNursing.docx

Transforming Nursing

Discussion Responses

PROFESSIONAL ROLE DEVELOPMENT

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to  two of your colleagues who selected a different advanced nursing practice role than you. Expand upon your colleague’s posting or offer an alternative perspective.

PEER #1

Solomon Soroibe Okwueze

Rew et al. (2020) observed that despite the meticulous planning and attention to detail required in nursing research, novice and experienced nurse researchers frequently need to pay more attention to the daily operational aspects necessary for conducting research studies. They underscored the goals of nursing research to enhance care quality, improve patient outcomes, and contribute to advancing nursing science. The authors advocate for project management as a series of iterative steps that bolster the nursing research methodology. This informatics project will profoundly influence my future nursing practice by refining my decision-making abilities, streamlining workflow, maintaining my collaborative and communication skills, and fostering innovation. This discussion delineates the project management methodologies and techniques that will most effectively guide the planning and development of my DNP doctoral project.

The project management processes and techniques I believe will provide the most guidance to assist me plan and develop my DNP doctoral project

One of the project management techniques I believe will provide the most guidance to assist me plan and develop my DNP doctoral project is the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) (Rew et al., 2020). The PERT technique will help me to estimate the time required to complete each project activity (Ba'Its et al., 2020). The other project management technique that may guide to assist me plan and develop my DNP doctoral project is resource leveling (Rew et al., 2020). This technique will help me to balance the workload resources to ensure that resources are effectively utilized throughout the project (Ba'Its et al., 2020). Moreover, expert judgment techniques will help me to plan and develop my DNP doctoral project. Expert judgment will help me to seek input such as recommendations, perspectives, and solutions from individuals and organizations with expert knowledge of project management (Sipes, 2020).

The other project management process and techniques that I believe will provide the most guidance to assist me plan and develop my DNP doctoral project is the assumption and constraint analysis and root cause analysis (Rew et al., 2020). Assumptions for this case are factors that are true or real for planning (Rew et al., 2020). Assumptions are made based on available information and relate to timelines, resources, and technology. Constraints in this case refer to the limitations that may have a negative impact on the project. It is important that project managers identify the potential constraints so that they better understand how best to execute the project. The root cause analysis helps project managers understand problems within a project rather than addressing the surface-level manifestations (Paulsen, 2021).

A spider web diagram or a radar chart is yet another project management technique I believe will guide to assist me plan and develop my DNP doctoral project. A spider web diagram helps project managers troubleshoot issues and analyze the various elements of a project (Rew et al., 2020). It provides a visual representation of data, compares the performance of different project components, identifies the strengths and weaknesses of a project, and communicates the status of the project with stakeholders (Rew et al., 2020). The process of creating a spider web diagram includes variables identification, creating an X-axis for each variable, plotting data points on each axis, analyzing results, and taking action.

I also believe that the alternative analysis technique will assist me plan and develop my DNP doctoral project. This technique is used to compare various options that project managers have relating to project planning, implementation, and control (Rew et al., 2020). Through this technique, project managers can help project managers to implement the most reasonable course of action. One of the alternative techniques is the cost-benefit analysis (CBA), which helps to compare different options based on the costs and benefits they provide to the project,

I believe that the project charter technique will assist me plan and develop my DNP doctoral project. The project charter will help me to define the various elements of a project, including topic, objectives, scope, and stakeholders (Rew et al., 2020). Additionally, decision matrix analysis is an alternative technique where all the alternative options are marked against a set of criteria (Levin & Levin, 2019). Moreover, the force field analysis is a type of alternative analysis that evaluates the various factors that are pro-project change and those that are against the change.

Besides, I believe that the bottom-up estimating technique will assist me plan and develop my DNP doctoral project. The bottom-up estimating method breaks down the project tasks into smaller components and estimates the time and cost required to accomplish each of the components individually (Rew et al., 2020). The estimates for the various components are then aggregated to determine the cost, time, and resources required to complete the entire project (Elguindi et al., 2020). This estimating method is preferred over top-bottom estimating because it considers the specific requirements for each task and promotes accountability as estimates are based on the various components of the project.

More so, the quality control inspection technique will help me plan and develop my DNP doctoral project. This technique helps to ensure that project managers meet all the required quality standards and requirements (Rew et al., 2020). I will use various inspection techniques such as visual inspection, where project managers use naked eyes to verify where there are any deviations from the specified quality standards (Badrick et al., 2019). Also, the functional testing method tests the functionality of the project to ensure that it meets the specifications. Automated inspection systems approach to quality control inspection may also be used to analyze the various components of the project automatically (Rew et al., 2020). I believe the quality audit will help me plan and develop my DNP doctoral project. It is a PMBOK Guide technique that ensures that a project adheres to the quality processes and standards set by an organization and identifies areas of improvement (Rew et al., 2020).

 

References

Badrick, T., Cervinski, M., & Loh, T. P. (2019). A primer on patient-based quality control techniques.  Clinical biochemistry64, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.12.004

Ba'Its, H. A., Puspita, I. A., & Bay, A. F. (2020). Combination of program evaluation and review technique (PERT) and critical path method (CPM) for project schedule development.  International Journal of Integrated Engineering12(3), 68-75.

Elguindi, N., Granier, C., Stavrakou, T., Darras, S., Bauwens, M., Cao, H., ... & Zheng, B. (2020). Intercomparison of magnitudes and trends in anthropogenic surface emissions from bottom‐up inventories, top‐down estimates, and emission scenarios.  Earth's Future8(8), e2020EF001520.

Levin, S. P., & Levin, M. (2019). Managing Ideas, People, and Projects: Organizational Tools and Strategies for Researchers.  iScience20, 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2019.09.017

Paulsen, M. (2021). Root cause analysis.  JAMA325(3), 225-226.

Rew, L., Cauvin, S., Cengiz, A., Pretorius, K., & Johnson, K. (2020). Application of project management tools and techniques to support nursing intervention research.  Nursing outlook68(4), 396–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2020.01.007

Sipes, C. (2020).  Project management for the advanced practice nurse (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing.

Chapter 8, “Case Studies: Applying Project Management Concepts and Tools” (pp. 190–210)

Chapter 3, “Design/Initiation: Project Management—Phase 1”

(pp. 50–74) “SWOT” (p. 165)

 

·

PEER #2

Angelor Eliscard

Main Post

Strategies of Project Management for the DNP Project

The following multiple project management processes and techniques tasks are essential to assist me in planning and developing the doctoral project to develop a fall prevention program for hospitalized patients in my future DNP program. Through the process of writing down the project charter, which will ideally take the form of a road map displaying the vision, goals, and scope narrowed on the priority high-fall risk units (Reid & DeGennaro, 2022), the responsible nurse managers and the quality group in charge of the task, and the schedule made up of milestones for planning the operating protocol, piloting it on two units, measuring its effect, and spreading the apparatus in the events.

A well-setup work breakdown structure describing clearly all the tasks needed at each stage of the project will generate clarity and ownership among all the team members, cover all the crucial stages, and not skip any of the steps. Tentative list of the activities anticipated: the whole exercise will be a Root Cause Analysis of recent falls, picking out already in existence protocols and conducting a literature review, applying for IRB, and using fall rate data in collection and analysis (Durham et al., 2023), develop appropriate education on the new protocol for staff, design fall risk assessment and care templates in the EHR and pilot on the units, revise work if there’s anything to be forgotten, last

Further, going over these potential risks time and again via regular evaluations with the proper risk management procedures, including contingency plans and mitigation strategies, will save this complex and long-lasting undertaking from the risks such as staff resistance, inadequate technology infrastructure, and the delays and overrun of the budget, thus helping it to meet quality and outcome targets on time (Hanners et al., 2023). Sustaining rigorous project management procedures and ensuring my research meets expected academic standards assure me that I can undertake and accomplish the doctoral project and obtain the professional skills that I can apply daily in my quality improvement work to enhance health center services.

                                                                                                                    Reference

Durham, M. L., Diegel-Vacek, L., Sparbel, K. J. H., Rugen, K. W., & Hershberger, P. E. (2023). Strategies for developing faculty confidence and competencies to mentor quality improvement DNP projects.  Journal of Professional Nursing47, 56–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.04.001Links to an external site.

Hanners, A., Alston, A., & Masciola, R. (2023). The business of doctor of nursing practice (DNP) education: Practical application strategies to apply business concepts in DNP education.  Journal of Professional Nursing46, 45–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2022.11.008Links to an external site.

Reid, K. R. Y., & DeGennaro, R. (2022). Strategies for completing a DNP final project.  The Nurse Practitioner47(12), 43–47.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.npr.0000873560.76870.65Links to an external site.

Assignment Rubric Details Close

Rubric

NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion1_Rubric

NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion1_Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 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 library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)

30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.

18 to >0 pts

Poor

Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion 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. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion 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. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion 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. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion 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. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion 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. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion 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. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion 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. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)

10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion 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 pts

Good

Discussion 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 pts

Fair

Discussion 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 pts

Poor

Discussion 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