[ORDER SOLUTION] Policy Evaluation

WEEK 9 NURS 6050 Discussion: The Role of the RN/APRN in Policy Evaluation   In the Module 4 Discussion, you considered how professional nurses can become involved in policy-making. A critical component of any policy design is evaluation of the results. How comfortable are you with the thought of becoming involved with such matters? Some nurses may be hesitant to get involved with policy evaluation. The preference may be to focus on the care and well-being of their patients; some nurses may feel ill-equipped to enter the realm of policy and political activities. However, as you have examined previously, who better to advocate for patients and effective programs and polices than nurses? Already patient advocates in interactions with doctors and leadership, why not with government and regulatory agencies? In this Discussion, you will reflect on the role of professional nurses in policy evaluation.   To Prepare:   In the Module 4 Discussion, you considered how professional nurses can become involved in policy-making. Review the Resources and reflect on the role of professional nurses in policy evaluation.   By Day 3 of Week 9   Post an explanation of at least two opportunities that currently exist for RNs and APRNs to actively participate in policy review. Explain some of the challenges that these opportunities may present and describe how you might overcome these challenges. Finally, recommend two strategies you might make to better advocate for or communicate the existence of these opportunities. Be specific and provide examples.   Rubric Detail     Name: NURS_6050_Module05_Week09_Discussion_Rubric     Excellent Good Fair Poor Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.   Supported by at least three current, credible sources.   Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.   At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.   Supported by at least three credible sources.   Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s).   One or 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.   Post is cited with two credible sources.   Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.   Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.   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 sources.   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 Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.   Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.   Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.   Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are 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. 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.   Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.   Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.   Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are missing.   No credible sources are cited. Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.   Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.   Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.   Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are 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. 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.   Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.   Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.   Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are missing.   No credible sources are cited. Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_6050_Module05_Week09_Discussion_Rubric         Learning Resources Required Readings Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.   Chapter 7, “Health Policy and Social Program Evaluation” (pp. 116–124 only) Glasgow, R. E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A. C. (2003). Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 93(8), 1261–1267.   Shiramizu, B., Shambaugh, V., Petrovich, H., Seto, T. B., Ho, T., Mokuau, N., & Hedges, J. R. (2016). Leading by success: Impact of a clinical and translational research infrastructure program to address health inequities. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 4(5), 983–991.   Williams, J. K., & Anderson, C. M. (2018). Omics research ethics considerations. Nursing Outlook, 66(4), 386–393. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2018.05.003   Document: Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Template (Word document)