In the article Managing to Improve Quality (attached): The Relationship Between Accreditation Standards, Safety Practices, and Patient Outcomes, the authors discuss the growing trend by medical insurance companies to eliminate reimbursement for Never Events. As these types of mistakes should be easily preventable, hospitals have developed protocols to lessen or extinguish the occurrence of these events. In addition, The Joint Commission (TJC) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have developed core measures to guide health care providers efforts in improving patient safety and the quality of care delivered.
Health care organizations have developed strategic agendas to help meet these standards and reduce the incidence of Never Events. Nurses significantly influence the overall quality of health care provided and play a pivotal role in improving patient outcomes.
For this Discussion, you will consider the standards that are in place for nurses and how they can be used to improve quality of care.
To prepare for this Discussion:
Review the information at the Joint Commission and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services websites on the core measures and standards presented in this weeks Resources.
Consider the nurses role in supporting the organizations strategic agenda as it relates to improving clinical outcomes.
Conduct an Internet search for either a Never Event or a core measure, and select one to address in your post.
By Day 3
Respond to the following:
How has the emphasis on quality of care, patient safety, and clinical care outcomes been impacted by specific standards emanating from TJC and/or CMS? Cite your selected core measure or Never Event in your response.
What is the impact of the nurses role in clinical outcomes for the organization?
Discuss nurse-specific challenges in influencing change in quality improvement.
How does this influence the ability of the organization to achieve its strategic agenda?
Support your response with references from the professional nursing literature.
Note Initial Post: A 3-paragraph (at least 350 words) response. Be sure to use evidence from the readings and include in-text citations. Utilize essay-level writing practice and skills, including the use of transitional material and organizational frames. Avoid quotes; paraphrase to incorporate evidence into your own writing. A reference list is required. Use the most current evidence (usually 5 years old).
Grid View
List View
Excellent Proficient Basic Needs Improvement
“Analyze how specific standards emanating from CMS and/or TJC have impacted quality of care, patient safety, and clinical care outcomes for a selected core measure or Never Event. ” Points Range:9 (12.00%) – 10 (13.33333%)
Initial post contains well developed and insightful analysis that brings new insight into the discussion . Points Range:8 (10.66666%) – 8 (10.66666%)
Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion. Points Range:7 (9.33333%) – 7 (9.33333%)
Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion. Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 6 (8.00%)
Initial post lacks analysis and brings little or no insight into the discussion.
“Determined the impact of the nurse’s role in clinical outcomes for the organization. ” Points Range:14 (18.66666%) – 15 (20.00%)
Initial post contains well developed and insightful analysis that brings new insight into the discussion . Points Range:12 (16.00%) – 13 (17.33333%)
Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion. Points Range:11 (14.66666%) – 11 (14.66666%)
Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion. Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 10 (13.33333%)
Initial post lacks analysis and brings little or no insight into the discussion.
“Differentiated selected nurse specific challenges in influencing change in quality improvement. ” Points Range:14 (18.66666%) – 15 (20.00%)
Initial post contains well developed and insightful analysis that brings new insight into the discussion . Points Range:12 (16.00%) – 13 (17.33333%)
Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion. Points Range:11 (14.66666%) – 11 (14.66666%)
Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion. Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 10 (13.33333%)
Initial post lacks analysis and brings little or no insight into the discussion.
Considered how these challenges influence the ability of the organization to achieve its strategic agenda. Points Range:9 (12.00%) – 10 (13.33333%)
Initial post contains well developed and insightful analysis that brings new insight into the discussion . Points Range:8 (10.66666%) – 8 (10.66666%)
Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion. Points Range:7 (9.33333%) – 7 (9.33333%)
Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion. Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 6 (8.00%)
Initial post lacks analysis and brings little or no insight into the discussion.
“Entered the discussion thread on 3 separate days. Wrote at least two posts to two separate peers. Responses are appropriate to the topic, substantive, and promoted discussion by one or more of the following: contributing insight to move the discussion forward. offering substantial and/or different points of view and asks questions to add to discussion including extra references or websites for peers to consider relating discussion to different areas of practice and applying concepts to practice **Additional points may be deducted for late posting per the University late policy.” Points Range:14 (18.66666%) – 15 (20.00%)
Response posts add substantive ideas and perspectives that invite further analysis and discussion. Participated 3 or more days in the classroom and responded to more than 2 classmates. Points Range:12 (16.00%) – 13 (17.33333%)
Response posts are proficient and provide adequate analysis and discussion. Participated 3 days in the classroom and responds to at least two classmates. Points Range:11 (14.66666%) – 11 (14.66666%)
Response posts are limited and provide minimal analysis and discussion. Participated less than 3 days in the classroom and/or responds to less than two classmates. Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 10 (13.33333%)
Response posts are inadequate and provide no analysis of discussion and/ or there is no participation in the classroom.
Uses evidence to support a claim and give credit to the source. Uses course learning resources and seeks additional scholarly resources to support ideas. Displays sentence, paragraph, and essay skills. Writes in a scholarly, well-organized manner using own words by synthesizing evidence/resources. Paraphrases to avoid plagiarism of the source. APA: No more than one short, unique quote with correct APA format. Appropriate use and format of in-text citations and reference list. Points Range:9 (12.00%) – 10 (13.33333%)
Writer demonstratesexcellence in all sentence and paragraph level skills within discussion board posts to meet the 4000 Academic Writing Expectations for this level. Points Range:8 (10.66666%) – 8 (10.66666%)
Writer demonstrates proficiency of most sentence and paragraph level skills within discussion board posts to meet the 4000 Academic Writing Expectations for this level with only one format or writing issue needing to be addressed. Points Range:7 (9.33333%) – 7 (9.33333%)
Writer demonstrates minimal skill in meeting sentence level and/or paragraph level skills within discussion board posts to meet the 4000 Academic Writing Expectations for this level with less than or equal to three format or writing issues needing to be addressed. Points Range:0 (0.00%) – 6 (8.00%)
Writer demonstrates inadequate skill within discussion board posts to meet the sentence and/or and paragraph level skills in meeting the 4000 Academic Writing Expectations for this level with four or more format or writing issues needing to be addressed.
Name:NURS_4005_Week6_Discussion_Rubric
Description:NURS 4006 Discussion Week 6 Rubric
