The Assignment you will submit this week will combine the work you completed in Week 1 (Introduction) and Week 2 (Analysis of Existing Evidence) and this week’s assignment, the Quality Improvement Process. These three sections, when combined, will complete Part I of your Capstone Paper.
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
To prepare for this Assignment:
Review the Capstone Paper Assignment GuideDownload Capstone Paper Assignment Guide
Locate the most current version of your Week 1 and Week 2 Assignment. You will add this section to that document.
Review the new expectations for Use of evidence and Credit to Source:
http://academLinks to an external site.icguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarlyvoiceLinks to an external site.
http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/webinars/scholarlywriting#s-lg-box-2773859Links to an external site.
Review the Walden University Writing Center webpage: Using Evidence: SynthesisLinks to an external site.
Review the Week 3 Assignment Rubric
For this Assignment
Describe the quality improvement process and the Quality model that will be used. Include a description of a quality improvement tool(s) that you will use in your quality improvement plan. See Spath, (2018) chapter 6 for examples.
Explain why the specific process was selected and document your explanation with references.
For the Week 3 Assignment, you will combine your Week 1, 2 and 3 assignments and submit a 3-4-page paper that addresses the following:
Practice Problem (Completed in Week 1)
State the practice problem in measurable terms and that reflect quality indicators. Include data that suggests a practice problem exists. Do not use anecdotal experiences or opinions.
Provide a purpose statement including the importance of improving patient outcomes.
Analysis of the Existing Evidence (Completed in Week 2)
Summarize the findings from the evidence analysis that support your practice problem. Include minimum of at least 5 evidence-based practice sources that support your practice problem. Identify research, clinical guidelines, expert opinions, and other relevant information. You must include two-three research studies in your analysis. Using your own words synthesize the evidence that supports your identified practice problem. There should be no quotes or personal opinions included in this section.
Quality Improvement Process (Completed this Week) (Approximately 2-3 paragraphs)
Describe the quality improvement process and the quality model that will be used. This is not your entire quality improvement plan, only a description of the quality improvement process and the quality model you chose. You will develop your specific quality improvement plan in week 4. Include a description of a quality improvement tool(s) that you will use in your quality improvement plan. See Spath, (2018) chapter 6 for examples.
Explain why the specific process was selected and document your explanation with references.
Conclusion
By Day 7
Submit your Assignment.
submission information
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK3Assgn_LastName_Firstinitial
Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NURS_4220_Week3_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_4220_Week3_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequired Content: Identified the quality improvement practice problem in measurable terms that reflect quality indicators.
10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent
Provided a fully developed quality improvement problem in measurable terms that reflect quality indicators with insightful analysis of concepts and related issues.
8 to >7.0 pts
Proficient
Provided a developed quality improvement problem in measurable terms that reflect quality indicators with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues.
7 to >6.0 pts
Basic
Provided a minimally developed quality improvement problem in measurable terms that reflect quality indicators with limited analysis of concepts and related issues.
6 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
Provided an under-developed quality improvement problem or is not in measurable terms that reflect quality indicators with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequired Content: Included data that suggests a practice problem exists.
10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent
Provided a fully developed description of data that suggests a practice problem exists with insightful analysis of concepts and related issues.
8 to >7.0 pts
Proficient
Provided a developed description of data that suggests a practice problem exists with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues.
7 to >6.0 pts
Basic
Provided a minimally developed description of data that suggests a practice problem exists with limited analysis of concepts and related issues.
6 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
Provided an under-developed description of data that suggests a practice problem exists with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequired Content: Provided the purpose statement/rationale for selecting the practice problem including the importance of improving patient outcomes.
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
Provided a fully developed purpose statement/rationale for the quality improvement problem with insightful analysis of concepts and related issues.
17 to >15.0 pts
Proficient
Provided a developed purpose statement/rationale for the quality improvement problem with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues.
15 to >13.0 pts
Basic
Provided a minimally developed purpose statement/rationale for the quality improvement problem with limited analysis of concepts and related issues.
13 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
Provided an under-developed purpose statement/rationale for the quality improvement problem with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequired Content: Synthesize the findings from the analysis of evidence that support the practice problem and meets all requirements.
40 to >35.0 pts
Excellent
Provided a fully developed synthesis of findings from the analysis of evidence.
35 to >31.0 pts
Proficient
Provided a developed synthesis of the findings from the analysis of evidence.
31 to >27.0 pts
Basic
Provided a minimally developed synthesis of the findings with limited analysis of the evidence.
27 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
Provided an under-developed synthesis with little or no analysis of the evidence.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequired Content: Applied a quality improvement process and quality model to the practice problem and explain why they were chosen.
25 to >22.0 pts
Excellent
Provided a fully developed discussion of the selected quality improvement process and quality model including explanation of why each was selected with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues.
22 to >19.0 pts
Proficient
Provided a developed discussion of the selected quality improvement process and quality model including explanation of why each was selected with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues.
19 to >17.0 pts
Basic
Provided a minimally developed discussion of the selected quality improvement process and quality model including explanation of why each was selected with limited analysis of concepts and related issues.
17 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
Provided an under-developed discussion of the selected quality improvement process and quality model including explanation of why each was selected with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequired Content: Chose a specific quality improvement tool that will be used throughout the project and explain why it was chosen.
15 to >13.0 pts
Excellent
Provided a fully developed discussion of the selected quality improvement tool including a justification of its selection with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues.
13 to >11.0 pts
Proficient
Provided a developed discussion of the selected quality improvement tool including a justification of its selection with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues.
11 to >10.0 pts
Basic
Provided a minimally developed discussion of the selected quality improvement tool including a justification of its selection with limited analysis of concepts and related issues.
10 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
Provided an under-developed discussion of the selected quality improvement tool including a justification of its selection with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessional Writing: Clarity, Flow, and Organization
10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent
Content is free from spelling, punctuation, and grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates very well-formed sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is completely clear, logical, and well-organized.
8 to >7.0 pts
Proficient
Content contains minor spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates appropriate sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is mostly clear, logical, and well-organized.
7 to >6.0 pts
Basic
Content contains moderate spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates adequate sentence and paragraph structure and may require some editing. Content presented is adequately clear, logical, and/or organized, but could benefit from additional editing/revision.
6 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
Content contains significant spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing does not demonstrate adequate sentence and paragraph structure and requires additional editing/proofreading. Key sections of presented content lack clarity, logical flow, and/or organization.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessional Writing: Context, Audience, Purpose, and Tone
10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent
Content clearly demonstrates awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is highly professional, scholarly, and free from bias, and style is appropriate for the professional setting/workplace context.
8 to >7.0 pts
Proficient
Content demonstrates satisfactory awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is adequately professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.
7 to >6.0 pts
Basic
Content demonstrates basic awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is somewhat professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is mostly consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.
6 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
Content minimally or does not demonstrate awareness of context, audience, and/or purpose. Writing is not reflective of professional/scholarly tone and/or is not free of bias. Style is inconsistent with the professional setting/workplace context and reflects the need for additional editing.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessional Writing: Originality, Source Credibility, and Attribution of Ideas
10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent
Content reflects original thought and writing and proper paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates full adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.
8 to >7.0 pts
Proficient
Content adequately reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates adequate adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.
7 to >6.0 pts
Basic
Content somewhat reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing somewhat demonstrates adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.
6 to >0 pts
Needs Improvement
Content does not adequately reflect original writing and/or paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates inconsistent adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and reference.
10 pts
Total Points: 150
Learning Resources
Required Readings
Spath, P. (2018). Introduction to healthcare quality management (3rd ed.). Health Administration Press.
Chapter 4, “Evaluating Performance” (pp. 79-118)
Chapter 5, “Continuous Improvement” (pp. 119-142)
Chapter 6, “Performance Improvement Tools” (pp. 143-174)
Note: Although Chapter 4 is previously assigned reading, please review it in preparation for this week’s material.
Yoder-Wise, P. S. (2019). Leading and managing in nursing (7th ed.). Mosby.
Chapter 19, “Building Effective Teams” (pp. 335-356)
Microsoft. (n.d.). Use charts and graphs in your presentationLinks to an external site.. https://support.office.com/en-gb/article/Use-charts-and-graphs-in-your-presentation-c74616f1-a5b2-4a37-8695-fbcc043bf526
Perla, R. J., Provost, L. P., & Murray, S. K. (2011). The run chart: A simple analytical tool for learning from variation in healthcare processesLinks to an external site.. BMJ Quality and Safety, 20(1), 46–51. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2009.037895
Document: Patient Satisfaction with Pain Management Run Chart (PDF
