NURS 8302 Discussion Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement

NURS 8302 Discussion Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement
What should be happening in practice? What is happening or observed in practice?
These two questions help to identify where quality improvement practice gaps might exist in nursing practice. If we know what should be happening does not coincide with what is happening, we know there is an issue, or more appropriately, a practice gap.
Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
A practice gap is the difference between a desirable or achievable state of practice and current reality. For example, a common gap in practice in healthcare organizations today, are healthcare associated infections (HAIs), such as central line associated blood stream infections (CLABSIs), or catheter associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs).
The ongoing identification of practice gaps is critical to quality improvement and involves identifying the current state, comparing that current state to the desired state, identifying the causes of the gaps in practice, and validating those gaps to develop a process for improvement.
For this Discussion, reflect on quality improvement practice gaps that may exist in your practice or organization. Consider what quality improvement methods and/or tools might be useful in improving this practice gap. Then, think about how you might address these challenges and what strategies you might implement as a future DNP-prepared nurse.
To Prepare:
Review the Learning Resources on tools and methods for quality improvement.
Reflect on a potential quality improvement practice gap, you have seen in your practice or organization, which you might consider using for your DNP project.
Consider the tools and methods you might use to address this quality improvement practice gap.
By Day 3 of Week 3
Post a brief explanation of how you would identify a quality improvement practice gap in your practice or organization. Describe a
NURS 8302 Discussion Identifying Practice Gaps for Quality Improvement
potential quality improvement practice gap you might use for your DNP project, and explain why. Then, explain at least two types of tools and/or methods you might use to address this quality improvement practice gap, and explain why. Be specific and provide examples.
By Day 6 of Week 3
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by expanding upon your colleague’s post and suggesting alternative tools and/or methods your colleague might consider using to address the quality improvement practice gap they selected.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 3 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 of Week 3 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 3
To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 3 Discussion
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_8302_Week3_Discussion_Rubric
Excellent
90–100
Good
80–89
Fair
70–79
Poor
: 0–69
Main 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 credible sources.
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
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 credible sources.
No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three current credible sources.
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
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 credible references.
Points Range: 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
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.
Cited with fewer than two credible references.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
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 credible references.
Main Posting:
Writing
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely.
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
First Response:
Writing Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
First Response:
Timely and full participation Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Second Response:
Writing Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response:
Timely and full participation Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100