Leading Organizations for Quality Improvement Initiative

Tinacherry100$

wk.8.discussion.LeadingOrganizationsforQualityImprovementInitiative.docx

Home >Nursing homework help >Leading Organizations for Quality Improvement Initiative

Leading Organizations for Quality Improvement Initiative

This is a graded discussion: 100 points possible

due Jan 15

Discussion

QUALITY IMPROVEMENT MODELS

What is the best way to implement quality improvement? What particular strategies and/or models should be used when developing a plan? Throughout the past 7 weeks, you have explored quality improvement in healthcare and nursing practice, and you will continue this exploration by analyzing specific quality improvement models. What models might work best in your nursing practice or healthcare organization?

Healthcare is complex and varied; therefore, quality improvement cannot be a one-sized fits all approach. To fit the complex and varied needs of an organization, there are multiple strategies and methods to implement quality improvement.

For this Discussion, select one quality improvement model to explore and analyze. Using the selected model, consider how this model might be implemented in your healthcare organization or nursing practice. Examine the effectiveness of this model and consider how this model might be applied to address impacts to adverse events for nursing practice.

RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

· Nash, D. B., Joshi, M. S., Ransom, E. R., & Ransom, S. B. (Eds.). (2019). The healthcare quality book: Vision, strategy, and tools (4th ed.). Health Administration Press.

· Chapter 15, “The Role of the National Committee for Quality Assurance” (pp. 389–414)

· Scoville, R., & Little, K. (2014). Comparing lean and quality improvementLinks to an external site. . Institute for Healthcare Improvement http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/IHIWhitePapers/ComparingLeanandQualityImprovement.aspx

· Tromp, R. (n.d.). A3 reportLinks to an external site. . Lean Six Sigma Group. https://leansixsigmagroup.co.uk/a3-report/

· UNC Institute for Healthcare Quality Improvement. (2023). Session 3: Charters, A3s, & driver diagrams Links to an external site. . https://www.med.unc.edu/ihqi/programs/medical-student-scholarly-concentration/session-3-charters-a3s-driver-diagrams/

Required Media

· Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (n.d.). Quality improvement essentials toolkitLinks to an external site. [Multimedia file]. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/Quality-Improvement-Essentials-Toolkit.aspx

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity. Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

TO PREPARE:

· Review the Learning Resources for this week, and reflect on the different quality improvement models presented.

· Select one quality improvement model from the following to focus on for this Discussion:

· Root Cause Analysis (RCA)

· A3

· Lean

· Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA)

· Reflect on the quality improvement model you selected, and consider how it might be implemented in your healthcare organization or nursing practice.

Post a brief explanation of the quality improvement model you selected, including a description of the components that make up this model. Be specific. Then, explain how this quality improvement model might be implemented in you healthcare organization or nursing practice in response to an adverse event requiring quality improvement. Be specific and provide examples.

Assignment Rubric Details Close

Rubric

NURS_8302_Week8_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_8302_Week8_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain 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 scholarly sources.

44 to >39.0 pts

Excellent 90%–100%

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 scholarly sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current scholarly sources that are correctly cited and formatted.

39 to >34.0 pts

Good 80%–89%

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 scholarly sources that are correctly cited and formatted.

34 to >30.0 pts

Fair 70%–79%

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. Supported by fewer than two scholarly sources that are correctly cited and formatted.

30 to >0 pts

Poor 0%–69%

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 scholarly sources.

44 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting: Writing

6 to >5.0 pts

Excellent 90%–100%

Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Response is effectively written in Standard Academic English.

5 to >4.0 pts

Good 80%–89%

Written clearly and concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Response is effectively written in Standard Academic English.

4 to >3.0 pts

Fair 70%–79%

Written somewhat clearly and concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. Edits are needed to follow standards for Standard Academic English.

3 to >0 pts

Poor 0%–69%

Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Does not follow Standard Academic English for most of the post.

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting: Timely and full participation

10 to >8.0 pts

Excellent 90%–100%

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. ... Posts main Discussion by due date.

8 to >7.0 pts

Good 80%–89%

Meets requirements for full participation. ... Posts main Discussion by due date.

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair 70%–79%

Posts main Discussion by due date.

6 to >0 pts

Poor 0%–69%

Does not meet requirements for full participation. ... Does not post main Discussion by due date.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with scholarly sources.

9 to >8.0 pts

Excellent 90%–100%

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. Uses scholarly sources to support ideas. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted.

8 to >7.0 pts

Good 80%–89%

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Uses scholarly sources to support ideas. Demonstrates a beginning synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted.

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair 70%–79%

Response is on topic and may have some depth. Minimal or no scholarly sources provided.

6 to >0 pts

Poor 0%–69%

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. No sources.

9 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Writing

6 to >5.0 pts

Excellent 90%–100%

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions is fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more scholarly sources. Response is effectively written in Standard Academic English.

5 to >4.0 pts

Good 80%–89%

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions is mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Response is written in Academic English.

4 to >3.0 pts

Fair 70%–79%

Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions is minimally addressed, if posed. Few or no scholarly sources are cited.

3 to >0 pts

Poor 0%–69%

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions is missing. No scholarly sources are cited.

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Timely and full participation

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent 90%–100%

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. ... Posts by due date.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good 80%–89%

Meets requirements for full participation. ... Posts by due date.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair 70%–79%

Posts by due date.

2 to >0 pts

Poor 0%–69%

Does not meet requirements for full participation. ... Does not post by due date.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with scholarly sources.

9 to >8.0 pts

Excellent 90%–100%

8 to >7.0 pts

Good 80%–89%

7 to >6.0 pts

Fair 70%–79%

Response is on topic and may have some depth. Minimal or no scholarly sources provided.

6 to >0 pts

Poor 0%–69%

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. No sources.

9 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Writing

6 to >5.0 pts

Excellent 90%–100%

5 to >4.0 pts

Good 80%–89%

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions is mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few at least two scholarly sources.... Response is written in Standard Academic English.

4 to >3.0 pts

Fair 70%–79%

Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions is minimally addressed, if posed. Few or no scholarly sources are cited.

3 to >0 pts

Poor 0%–69%

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions is missing. No scholarly sources are cited.

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Timely and full participation

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent 90%–100%

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good 80%–89%

Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.

3 to >2.0 pts

Fair 70%–79%

Posts by due date.

2 to >0 pts

Poor 0%–69%

Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.

5 pts

Total Points: 100