ASSIGNMENT: NUR735 Leadership in Advanced Nursing Practice

ASSIGNMENT: NUR735 Leadership in Advanced Nursing Practice

ASSIGNMENT: NUR735 Leadership in Advanced Nursing Practice

NUR735: Leadership in Advanced Nursing Practice

Download or Print the Course Syllabus (Links to an external site.)
Term:

Fall 2022
Course Credit Hours:

3
Prerequisites/Co-Requisites:

Doctor of Nursing Practice majors only
Course Description:

This course emphasizes organizational and system leadership strategies for the advanced practice nurse with an emphasis on productivity in emerging practice environments. Improvement of health outcomes, patient safety, and inter-professional collaboration will be included.
Instructor Information:

Lead Instructor: Kelly Fogelmark

Email: kfogelmark@bradley.edu
Course Outcomes:

Apply principles of evidence-based practice associated with the evaluation and analysis of current leadership literature.
Analyze impact of interprofessional collaboration competencies on organizational issues and systems complexities.
Create a plan to integrate Quality and Safety Education for Nurses (QSEN) competencies into the culture of the workplace.
Communicate effectively across disciplines to lead change in a complex healthcare system.
Incorporate cultural sensitivity in interpersonal interactions at all levels.
Explore leadership roles to improve healthcare delivery in a variety of settings.
Analyze organizational and/or systems opportunities to effect change.
Re-energize and develop the leader within.

Required Textbooks:

Armstrong, G.E., & Sables-Baus, S. (2019). Leadership and systems improvement for the DNP.
Springer Publishing. ISBN: 978-0826188465

American Psychological Association (2020). Publication manual for the American Psychological Association. (7th ed). ISBN-13: 978-1433832154
Turnitin

Select assignments will be scanned using Turnitin software. Turnitin is an online service that highlights matching text in written work. It indexes Internet sources, databases of subscription services, and written work submitted through its website. Assignments sent through Turnitin are scanned against all of its sources and a report is generated that summarizes and highlights matching text and where it was found. It is up to instructors and students to interpret the report to determine if plagiarism occurred. You may submit your assignment to Turnitin prior to its due date to assess your work against Turnitin’s database. You may use the Originality Report’s results to address any originality concerns in your work, and then resubmit your assignment for grading. You may resubmit until the assignment’s due date. Any work that has been submitted at the time the assignment is due will be considered your final submission, and this will be the submission used for grading.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Turnitin Resources and Guides

Visit the Bradley University TurnitinLinks to an external site. student page for tips and resources, including a video tutorial on how to submit an assignment using Turnitin.
Smarthinking

As an online student, you have access to the Smarthinking writing center to support you in successfully completing your coursework. Smarthinking for Nursing is free and available for students Sunday through Thursday, 24 hours. Friday and Saturday times must be pre-scheduled. Access Smarthinking through your Canvas courses via the sidebar menu labeled Online Tutoring. Remember to seek assistance several days before an assignment is due to make sure you have time to review any suggestions and make final edits before your assignment deadline.
Required Policies

Evaluation of Student Learning

Minimum Passing Standard:

Students must earn a “B” or better in all nursing courses (any course that starts with NUR). Students must repeat nursing courses where a grade of “B” is not achieved the semester immediately following the unsatisfactory course grade unless otherwise noted due to course availability.

Failure to achieve the grade of B or better in any two nursing courses within the graduate curriculum will result in dismissal from the program.
Grading Scale

The grading scale for the Department of Nursing is used to determine the course letter grades.
Grading Scale Grade Range Grading Scale
A 92–100

Minimum Passing Standard:
Students must earn a “B” or better in all nursing courses
B 85–91
C 77–84
D 72–76
F 71 and below

NOTE: For all non-nursing courses (courses with course numbers that do not begin with “NUR”), please refer to that departments grading criteria/scale.

Rounding of final grades: The final grade for the course may be rounded up using standard rounding rules. The lead instructor will round the grades.
Assignment and Point Distribution Assignment Point Value
Discussions 120
Assignments 431
Total 551

Late Work Policy

All assigned course work is due on dates assigned. Late assignments will have 10% of the total possible points deducted for each day late unless prior arrangements have been made. Prior arrangements must be made before the due date, not on the due date. Extensions are granted at the discretion of the instructor.

Late postings for forum discussions will have 1 point deducted for each day late unless prior arrangements have been made. Prior arrangements must be made before the due date not on the due date. Extensions are granted at the discretion of the instructor.

Academic Integrity

Bradley University requires that all graduate students read and support the Policy on Academic Issues including cheating and plagiarism. Academic Integrity is a core value of our community of learners. Every member of the academic community (students, faculty, and staff) is expected to maintain high standards of integrity in all facets of work and study. The Policy on Academic Issues describes appropriate academic conduct in research, writing, assessment, and ethics.

Academic dishonesty is not tolerated at Bradley University. The penalties can be severe and include:

Failing the assignment
Failing the course
Referral to University Judicial System and the disciplinary sanctions for violation of University regulations.

Students are urged to discuss questions regarding academic integrity with instructors, advisors, or with the Director of Nursing.

Review the Student Conduct Code and PolicyLinks to an external site..

APA/Scholarly Writing

You must demonstrate proficiency in using American Psychological Association (APA) format in all submitted works, unless instructed otherwise.

Written Assignments

Written assignments must be submitted in a readable and editable Microsoft Word file format (.doc/.docx) unless otherwise specified by the instructor. Google docs will not be accepted due to the limited commenting and track changes features. When TurnItIn is indicated, the assignment must have a completed report.

It is the student’s responsibility to check the file type and format when submitting written assignments. A zero may be awarded for files that cannot be opened or are submitted in an unreadable/unaccepted format.

Online Proctoring

In order to ensure the highest quality and secure environment, major assessments within your course may be proctored using a third-party vendor. These assignments will be identified within your course site and instructions/preparation for the use of this technology should be followed.

Classroom Expectations/Netiquette and Electronic Communication Policy

Class attendance in the form of weekly reading and assignments is required. If you cannot complete the weekly assignment you must notify the instructor prior to the due date. Your Bradley email should be used for all communication with your instructors.

Participation requires preparing extensively on all topics weekly, participating in discussion forum posts, submitting assignments, completing quizzes and exams, as scheduled.

Log on to the course website at least twice per week and check your Bradley e-mail daily. You must respond to your instructor email questions or concerns as soon as possible, but within 48 hours.

You must have reliable access to a computer with internet capability and course required software. You must also be able to use the internet to access course documents and to send and receive e-mail and e-mail attachments. Refer to MyOnline technical requirements.

As adult learners, you are responsible for your own learning. Please feel free to contact your course instructors any time if you have concerns about the content of this course and they will work with you to alleviate your concerns. Should your concern or issue not be resolved, contact the lead instructor. If your concern or issue remains unresolved, you may contact the Director of Nursing directly for facilitation. It is an expectation that all graduate students be critical thinkers and work to resolve their issues as swiftly and professionally first with their course instructors, prior to escalating issues or concerns to those members of higher administration.
Guidelines for Web Etiquette

This policy governs how to interact in this online course. To promote effective and positive interactions this policy encourages everyone participating in this course (students, faculty and maybe staff) to use common courtesy and respect in all forms of electronic communication.
Guidelines for electronic communications among students and with the faculty:

Any offensive, sexual, discriminatory or prejudicial language is prohibited.
If you disagree with an idea do not make it personal. Do not use personal attacks or threatening language. Do not post while angry or emotional. Maintain comments in a respectful manner.
Online communication can be difficult to understand the “tone” of the writer/author. Sometimes the true meaning is misunderstood. Choose your words carefully. Some symbols or emoticons like 🙂 may help communicate that you are less serious.
Remember English may not be the first language for everyone enrolled in this course. Consequently, be tolerant to mistakes; do not use acronyms or abbreviations unless the entire class is familiar with them.
Be polite and professional if you have to correct someone for inaccurate information or mistakes.
Do not post personal information of other students without their permission. Do not forward an e-mail, or file attachment without the permission of the author.
Avoid using text message shorthand, not everyone is familiarized with it.
Please check your spelling and proofread your message.
AVOID USING ALL CAPS. It’s considered shouting.

If you feel you are being harassed or someone is abusive or demeaning to you in this online course, please do not hesitate to contact the instructor.

Please refer to Department of Nursing Honor Code (found in the Graduate Student Handbook) and the Graduate Student Handbook for student conduct expectations.

Student Academic Services (SAS), Accommodations, etc.

Bradley University seeks to provide effective services and accommodation for qualified individuals with documented disabilities. SAS is committed to the fulfillment of equal educational opportunity, academic freedom and human dignity for students with disabilities. The SAS exists to provide reasonable and appropriate accommodations for qualified students with documented disabilities, to assist students in self-advocacy, to educate the Bradley community about disabilities, and ensure compliance with federal and state law. If you would benefit from an accommodation because of a documented disability, you are required to register with Student Support Services at the beginning of the semester. Please contact the Office of Student Access ServicesLinks to an external site..

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Emergency Services/Natural or Catastrophic Events

In the event that a catastrophic event occurs on a local, regional, or national level and disables communication to/from Bradley University, you should provide for your own and your family’s safety and contact your instructors by phone, private e-mail, or through alternately provided numbers. Every effort on the faculty’s part will be made to reasonably attempt to continue with the course and to meet the course objectives.

Fair Practice Work Policy

A fair practice work policy protects students from assuming the role of their credentialed supervisor, preceptor, professor, or clinical instructor. Students should be supervised in their field and clinical experiences and should not be serving as in the workforce. APN students should be supervised at all times and final decision making/patient care is the responsibility of the preceptor. All documentation regarding patient care must be reviewed by the clinical preceptor; students are encouraged to complete patient care documentation (both for the clinical site and the student’s Typhon patient documentation) during practicum hours.

Professional Dress Code

You are expected to reflect professionalism and maintain high standards of appearance and grooming in the clinical setting. You must adhere to the dress code of the clinical facility and have your Bradley nursing badge prominently displayed above the waistline.
Rubrics:
Discussion Initial Post and Reply Rubric
Discussion Initial Post and Reply Rubric Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(3 to >2 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(2 to >1 point) Does Not Meet Expectations
(1 to >0 points)
Initial Post: Relevance of Post (3 points) Answer relates to the discussion question, is accurate and relevant, presents correct information, and demonstrates critical thinking. Answer relates to the discussion question but demonstrates minimal critical thinking or contains misinformation, inaccurate thinking, and/or irrelevant remarks. Answer does not relate to the discussion question.
Initial Post: Expression Within Post (3 points) Clear and concise expression of opinions and ideas with obvious connection to topic. Minimal expression of opinions or ideas or unclear connection to topic. No clear expression of opinions or ideas or no connection to topic.
Initial Post: Mechanics (3 points) Post is grammatically correct with rare misspellings. Adheres to all APA guidelines. Consistently cites at least two resources in APA format to support opinion. Some spelling and grammar errors in post. Cites at least one resource to support opinion, but APA format contains errors. Many spelling and grammar errors in post; post appears hasty. Does not follow APA guidelines. Does not cite any resources in APA format to support opinion.
Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(2 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(1 point) Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 points)
Reply Posts: Relevance of Post (2 points) Responds to at least two classmates. Responses relate to the discussion question, are accurate and relevant, and present correct information. Responds to at least two classmates but responses do not relate to the discussion or contain misinformation, inaccurate thinking, and/or irrelevant remarks. Does not respond to at least two classmates.
Reply Posts: Participation (2 points) Responds to at least two classmates. Consistently encourages and facilitates interaction among peers during the course of the discussion period; develops thought–provoking questions to facilitate discussion. Responds to at least two classmates with some detailed remarks regarding their contributions; presents relevant viewpoints for consideration. Does not respond to at least two classmates or posts are not substantive; marginal effort to become involved in group discussion.
Reply Posts: Mechanics (2 points) Responses consistently demonstrate use of professional vocabulary and APA writing style. Responses occasionally demonstrate use of professional vocabulary and APA writing style. Responses do not demonstrate use of professional vocabulary or APA writing style.
Total Points Possible 15 points
Bongo Introduction Rubric

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(2.0- 3 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(1.0- 2 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations (0–1 points)

Relevance (3 points)

All required components are comprehensively discussed

All required components are adequately discussed

Most of the required components are discussed or all components addressed superficially

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(2.0 -3 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(1.0-2 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations (0–1 points)

Oral Presentation (3 points)

Professionalism

Quality of speech

Language skills and pronunciation

Overall delivery (organized, controlled, smooth, length of presentation)

 

3-5 minutes in length

Presenter has professional appearance and demeanor, clear and audible speech, appropriate language skills and pronunciation, and an organized overall delivery that is controlled and smooth.

Presentation delivered within the specified timeframe.

Presenter has professional appearance and demeanor; speech is clear and audible, but poor language skills and pronunciation and/or overall delivery is choppy and unorganized, and/or presentation not delivered within the specified timeframe.

Presenter is unprepared; speech is unclear and barely audible; poor language skills used and difficult to understand pronunciation; overall delivery choppy and unorganized. Presentation is not delivered within the specified timeframe

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(2.0- 3 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(1.0-2 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations (0–1 points)

Visual Presentation (3 points)

Appropriate font type and size; good use of colors, contrasts, and transitions on all slides; exemplary creativity

Appropriate font type or size on most slides; acceptable use of colors, contrasts, and transitions on most slides; moderate creativity

Inappropriate font type or size; distracting colors, contrasts, transitions, or sounds; no creativity

Total Points Possible = 9

Reply Posts

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(2 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(1 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations (0 points)

Relevance (2 points)

Responds to two classmates and addresses the potential for QI projects based on the opportunities described using RISE

Responds to two classmates using RISE, but does not address the potential for QI projects based on the opportunities described OR responds to two classmates addressing the potential for QI projects based on the opportunities described and does not use RISE

Does not respond to at least two classmates.

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(2 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(1 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations (0 points)

Participation (2 points)

Responds to at least two classmates. Consistently encourages and facilitates interaction among peers during the course of the discussion period; develops thought–provoking questions to facilitate discussion.

Responds to at least two classmates with some detailed remarks regarding their contributions; presents relevant viewpoints for consideration.

Does not respond to at least two classmates or posts are not substantive; marginal effort to become involved in group discussion.

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(2 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(1 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations (0 points)

Mechanics (2 points)

Responses consistently demonstrate use of professional vocabulary and APA writing style.

Responses occasionally demonstrate use of professional vocabulary and APA writing style.

Responses do not demonstrate use of professional vocabulary or APA writing style.

Total Points Possible

6 Points
QSEN Quality Improvement and Safety Competencies Self–Assessment
QSEN Quality Improvement and Safety Competencies Self–Assessment Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(20 to >19 points) Meets Expectations
(19 to >17 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(17 to >14 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(14 to >0 points)
Content (20 points) Three skills in the assessment are rated and assessed for need. One or two action steps for each skill are described comprehensively. Three skills in the assessment are rated and assessed for need, but one or two action steps for each skill are not described adequately. Less than three skills in the assessment are rated and assessed for need. One or two action steps are provided, but described poorly or incomplete information is provided. Less than three skills in the assessment are rated and assessed for need. One or two action steps for each skill are not provided or incomplete information is provided.
Total Points Possible 20 points
Organizational Assessment
Organizational Assessment Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(15 to >14 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(14 to >10 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(10 to >0 points)
Content (15 points) All applicable categories are comprehensively described. Most applicable categories are adequately described and/or some applicable categories not addressed. Applicable categories are poorly described and/or applicable categories not addressed.
Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(5 to >4 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(4 to >2 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(2 to >0 points)
Documentation and Mechanics (5 points) No errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure. Few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure. Numerous and distracting errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure.
Total Points Possible 20 points
Stakeholder Interview
Stakeholder Interview Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(30 to >27 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(27 to >25 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(25 to >23 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(23 to >0 points)
Stakeholder Interviews (30 points) Comprehensively describes all components addressed in two stakeholder interviews. Includes leaders’ role/title and setting of site. Adequately describes all components addressed in two stakeholder interviews and/or does not include leaders’ role/title and setting of site. Describes some of the components addressed in two stakeholder interviews and does not include leaders’ role/title and setting of site, or describes only one interview or describes all components of the interviews poorly. Does not describe most or all components of interviews title/role of leaders and setting of site, or does not describe any interviews.
Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(20 to >18 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(18 to >16 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(16 to >14 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(14 to >0 points)
Problem Statement (20 points) Problem clearly stated and discussed concisely. Problem stated but discussion is lacking conciseness. Problem stated but unclear and not concise. Problem statement not included or statement inappropriately related to the problem.
Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(0% deduction) Nearly Meets Expectations
(1.0 – 5% deduction) Barely Meets Expectations
(5.0 – 8% deduction) Does Not Meet Expectations
(8.0 – 10% deduction)
APA and Writing Scholarship (% deduction) APA format, references, and appendices (as appropriate) are correct. Professional written communication and correct grammar are used. APA format, references, and appendices (as appropriate) have some errors. Some errors in written communication and grammar. APA format, references, and appendices (as appropriate) have frequent errors. Frequent errors in written communication and grammar. APA format, references, and appendices (as appropriate) have numerous and distracting errors. Written communication and grammar lack professionalism.
Total Points Possible 50 points
Project Team
Project Team Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(15 to >14 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(14 to >10 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(10 to >0 points)
Content (15 points) All categories are well–defined and clearly stated with appropriate team members for project topic. Most categories are well–defined and clearly stated with appropriate team members for project topic. Categories are poorly defined or not addressed or most team members are inappropriate for project topic.
Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(5 to >4 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(4 to >2 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(2 to >0 points)
Documentation and Mechanics (5 points) No errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure. Few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure. Numerous and distracting errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure.
Total Points Possible 20 points
Leadership Communication and Decision-Making

Leadership Communication and Decision-Making

 

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(25 to >23 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(14 to >10 points)

Barely Meets Expectations
(20 to >17 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations
(17 to >0 points)

Quality of Work (25 points)

All required components are comprehensively discussed and includes meeting agenda in appendix.

All required components are adequately discussed and includes meeting agenda in appendix

Required components are discussed poorly and/or meeting agenda not included in the appendix.

Not all of the components are discussed and meeting agenda is not included in the appendix.

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(0% Deduction)

Nearly Meets Expectations (1.0 – 5% Deduction)

Barely Meets Expectations (5.0 – 8% Deduction)

Does Not Meet Expectations
(8.0 – 10% Deduction)

APA and Writing Scholarship (% deduction)

APA format, references, and appendices (as appropriate) are correct. Professional written communication and correct grammar are used.

APA format, references, and appendices (as appropriate) have some errors. Some errors in written communication and grammar.

APA format, references, and appendices (as appropriate) have frequent errors. Frequent errors in written communication and grammar.

APA format, references, and appendices (as appropriate) have numerous and distracting errors. Written communication and grammar lack professionalism.

Total Points Possible

25 points
RCA Defining the Problem

RCA Defining the Problem

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(20 to >18 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(18 to >16 points)

Barely Meets Expectations
(16 to >14 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations
(14 to >0 points)

RCA (20 points)

Completes an RCA tool comprehensively as it relates to the problem.

Completes an RCA tool adequately as it relates to the problem.

RCA tool is incomplete or is completely poorly.

RCA tool not included or RCA does not relate to the problem.

Total Points Possible

20 points

Quality Control Flowchart

Quality Control Flowchart

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(20 to >18 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(18 to >16 points)

Barely Meets Expectations
(16 to >14 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations
(14 to >0 points)

Flowchart (20 points)

Completes a detailed flowchart for a process addressing the problem with clear start and end points.

Completes a flowchart for a process addressing the problem with clear start and end points, but is lacking detail.

Flowchart for a process addressing the problem is incomplete, or is complete but is not detailed and/or does not have clear start and end points.

Flowchart is not included or flowchart process does not relate to the problem.

Total Points Possible

20 points
Assessing Emotional Intelligence
Assessing Emotional Intelligence

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(20 to >19 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(19 to >16 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations
(16 to >0 points)

Content (25 points)

Comprehensively describes all components, supports with two relevant resources, and includes EI self-assessment in appendix.

Adequately describes all the components, supports with two relevant resources, and includes EI self-assessment in appendix.

Poorly describes all components OR some components not addressed OR does not include two relevant sources and/or EI self-assessment in appendix.

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(5 to > 4.0 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(4 to > 3.0 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 points)

Documentation and Mechanics (5 points

Presenter has No errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure.

Few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure.

Numerous and distracting errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure.

Total Points Possible

25 points
Key Driver Diagram
Key Driver Diagram

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(15 to >14 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(14 to >10 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations
(10 to >0 points)

Content (15 points)

All drivers are comprehensively described, appropriate to the aim, and includes the project aim.

Most drivers are adequately described and/or some drivers are not appropriate to the aim and include the project aim.

Drivers are poorly described and/or most drivers are not appropriate to the aim and/or does not include the project aim.

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(5 to > 4.0 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(4 to > 2.0 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations
(0-2 points)

Documentation and Mechanics (5 points

No errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure

Few errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure.

Numerous and distracting errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure.

Total Points Possible

20 points

 

Elevator Speech

Elevator Speech

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(20 to >18 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(18 to >16 points)

Barely Meets Expectations
(16 to >14 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations
(14 to >0 points)

Content (20 points)

Includes the following criteria:
• Who you are (e.g., name, title, student)
• What do you do (e.g., nursing program, area of expertise/employment, etc.)
• What are you looking for? (potential areas for improvement, project ideas)
• Closing

All required components are expressed well.

All required components are adequately expressed.

Most required components are poorly expressed.

Components are poorly expressed and some components missing.

Criterion & Points Possible

Meets Expectations
(5 to > 4.0 points)

Nearly Meets Expectations
(4 to > 3.0 points)

Barely Meets Expectations
(3 to >0.0 points)

Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 points)

Oral Delivery (5 points)

Professionalism
Quality of speech is natural
Clear language skills and pronunciation
30 seconds in length

Presenter has professional appearance and demeanor, clear and audible speech, appropriate language skills and pronunciation, and an organized overall delivery that is controlled and smooth. Presentation delivered within the specified timeframe.

Presenter has professional appearance and demeanor; speech and pronunciation are clear and audible, but language skills could be improved. Overall delivery is good, but could be smoother and more organized. Presentation is not delivered within the specified timeframe.

Presenter has professional appearance and demeanor, but speech is unclear and barely audible, and/or poor language skills used and pronunciation and/or overall delivery is choppy and unorganized, and/or presentation is not delivered within the specified timeframe.

Presenter is unprepared; speech is unclear and barely audible; poor language skills used and difficult to understand pronunciation; overall delivery choppy and unorganized. Presentation is not delivered within the specified timeframe.

Total Points Possible

25 points
Problem Validation and Project Aim
Problem Validation and Project Aim Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(10 to >9 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(9 to >6 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(6 to >3 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(3 to >0 points)
Measurement Plan (10 points) Comprehensively describes at least three data sets as they relate to the problem. Adequately describes at least three data sets as they relate to the problem. Describes fewer than three data sets or describes three data sets poorly as they relate to the problem, or some data sets described do not relate to the problem. Data sets not addressed or data sets described do not relate to the problem.
Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(15 to >14 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(14 to >12 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(12 to >11 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(11 to >0 points)
Gap Analysis (15 points) Comprehensively describes all components and supports best practices with appropriate evidence–based resources. Adequately describes all components and supports best practices with appropriate evidence–based resources. Describes components poorly and/or does not support best practices with appropriate evidence–based resources or incomplete information provided. Gap analysis not included or components not addressed appropriately as they relate to the problem.
Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(5 to >4 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(4 to >3 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(3 to >0 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 points)
Project Aim (5 points) At least one project aim is written in SMART format and linked to problem. At least one project aim is written in SMART format and adequately linked to problem. At least one project aim is written in SMART format but poorly linked to problem. Project aim not included or project aim not written in SMART format and/or does not link to problem.
Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(0% deduction) Nearly Meets Expectations
(1.0 – 5% deduction) Barely Meets Expectations
(5.0 – 8% deduction) Does Not Meet Expectations
(8.0 – 10% deduction)
APA and Writing Scholarship (% deduction) APA format and references are correct. Professional written communication and correct grammar are used. APA format and references have some errors. Some errors in written communication and grammar. APA format and references have frequent errors. Frequent errors in written communication and grammar. APA format and references have numerous and distracting errors. Written communication and grammar lack professionalism.
Total Points Possible 30 points
Project Charter Presentation
Project Charter Presentation Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(30 to >27 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(27 to >25 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(25 to >23 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(23 to >0 points)
Content (30 points): Describes the following criteria:

Title Slide
Team Leader
Organizational Setting
Stakeholders
Team Members
Problem Statement
Key Findings from RCA
Project Aim
Scope of Project
Measurement Plan
Gap Analysis & Evidence
Conclusion
Reference List

All required components are comprehensively discussed. All required components are adequately discussed. Most of the required components are discussed or all components addressed superficially. Not all of the content areas are discussed, or some items in the assignment guidelines are not discussed or are too briefly addressed to be meaningful.
Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(10 to >9 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(9 to >6 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(6 to >3 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(3 to >0 points)
Oral Presentation (10 points)

Professionalism

Quality of speech

Language skills and pronunciation

Overall delivery (organized, controlled, smooth, length of presentation)

6–8 minutes in length
Presenter has professional appearance and demeanor, clear and audible speech, appropriate language skills and pronunciation, and an organized overall delivery that is controlled and smooth.

Presentation delivered within the specified timeframe.
Presenter has professional appearance and demeanor; speech is clear and audible, but poor language skills and pronunciation and/or overall delivery is choppy and unorganized, and/or presentation not delivered within the specified timeframe. Presenter has professional appearance and demeanor, but speech is unclear and barely audible, and/or poor language skills and pronunciation used and/or overall delivery is choppy and unorganized, and/or presentation is not delivered within the specified timeframe. Presenter is unprepared; speech is unclear and barely audible; poor language skills used and difficult to understand pronunciation; overall delivery choppy and unorganized. Presentation is not delivered within the specified timeframe.
Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(10 to >9 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(9 to >6 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(6 to >3 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(3 to >0 points)
Visual Presentation (10 points)
Font type/size, colors, contrasts, transitions, or sounds, creativity, organization Appropriate font type and size; good use of colors, contrasts, and transitions on all slides; exemplary creativity. Appropriate font type or size on most slides; acceptable use of colors, contrasts, and transitions on most slides; moderate creativity. Inappropriate font type or size; distracting colors, contrasts, transitions, or sounds; little creativity. Inappropriate font type or size; distracting colors, contrasts, transitions, or sounds; no creativity.
Criterion & Points Possible Meets Expectations
(0% deduction) Nearly Meets Expectations
(1.0 – 5% deduction) Barely Meets Expectations
(5.0 – 8% deduction) Does Not Meet Expectations
(8.0 – 10% deduction)
Documentation and Mechanics (% deduction)

APA format, references, spelling/grammar, organization
No errors in spelling/grammar; very organized; references cited in APA format on slides where appropriate. Two or fewer errors in spelling/grammar; moderately organized; most references cited in APA format on slides where appropriate. More than two errors in spelling/grammar; unorganized; some references cited on slides in APA format where appropriate. Many errors in spelling/grammar; very unorganized; references not cited in APA format on slides where appropriate or no references cited.
Total Points Possible 50 points
QI Project Proposal
QI Project Proposal Criteria Meets Expectations
(5 to >4 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(4 to >3 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(3 to >0 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 points)
Introduction Basic overview, reason for selection, trigger to select the problem clearly stated and discussed. Basic overview, reason for selection, trigger to select the problem stated with some discussion. Basic overview, reason for selection, trigger to select the problem stated with minimal discussion or some components not addressed. Basic overview, reason for selection, trigger to select the problem not included or poorly discussed.
Meets Expectations
(10 to >9 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(9 to >6 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(6 to >3 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(3 to >0 points)
Organizational Setting Congruence with organizational plan and organizational characteristics clearly stated and comprehensively discussed in relation to the problem. Congruence with organizational plan and organizational characteristics stated, with some discussion in relation to the problem. Congruence with organizational plan and organizational characteristics implied, with minimal discussion in relation to the problem. Congruence with organizational plan and organizational characteristics not included or inappropriately related to the problem.
Meets Expectations
(5 to >4 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(4 to >3 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(3 to >0 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(0 points)
Problem Statement Problem clearly stated and discussed concisely. Problem stated but discussion is lacking conciseness. Problem stated but unclear and not concise. Problem statement not included or statement inappropriately related to the problem.
Meets Expectations
(10 to >9 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(9 to >6 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(6 to >3 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(3 to >0 points)
Evidence to Support Background, significance, context of problem, and system/population impact/influence clearly stated and discussed; at least five recent scholarly articles included. Background, significance, context of problem, and system/population impact/influence stated with some discussion; at least five recent scholarly articles included. Background, significance, context of problem, and system/population impact/influence stated with minimal discussion or some components not addressed or less than five recent scholarly articles included. Background, significance, context of problem, and system/population impact/influence not included or poorly discussed and/or less than five recent scholarly articles included.
Meets Expectations
(10 to >9 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(9 to >6 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(6 to >3 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(3 to >0 points)
Current State Current state clearly identified and discussed. Provides a copy of workflow map in appendix. Current state identified with some discussion. Provides a copy of workflow map in appendix. Current state identified with minimal discussion and/or does not provide a copy of workflow map in appendix. Current state not identified or inadequately discussed and/or does not provide a copy of workflow map in appendix.
Meets Expectations
(10 to >9 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(9 to >6 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(6 to >3 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(3 to >0 points)
Root Cause Analysis Comprehensively describes method and key findings. Provides a copy of completed tool in appendix. Adequately describes method and key findings. Provides a copy of the completed tool in appendix. Minimally describes method and key findings and/or copy of the completed tool not in the appendix. Does not describe method and key findings or poorly described, and/or copy of the completed tool not in the appendix.
Meets Expectations
(10 to >9 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(9 to >6 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(6 to >3 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(3 to >0 points)
Measurement Plan Measurement plan comprehensively described in relation to the problem. Measurement plan adequately described in relation to the problem. Measurement plan minimally described in relation to the problem. Inappropriate measurement plan described and/or does not relate to the problem or measurement plan not included.
Meets Expectations
(10 to >9 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(9 to >6 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(6 to >3 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(3 to >0 points)
Gap Analysis Comprehensively identifies at least two priority gaps, describes best practice with supporting evidence, and desired outcome. Adequately identifies at least two priority gaps, describes best practice with supporting evidence, and desired outcome. Minimally identifies at least two priority gaps, describes best practice with supporting evidence, and desired outcome or some components not described. Does not identify at least two priority gaps, or describe best practice with supporting evidence, and desired outcome or describes poorly.
Meets Expectations
(10 to >9 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(9 to >6 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(6 to >3 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(3 to >0 points)
Project Aim Purpose/aim and objectives clearly stated and discussed. Objectives written in SMART format and linked to project aim. Purpose/aim and objectives stated with some discussion. Objectives written in SMART format and adequately linked to project aim. Purpose/aim and objectives stated with minimal discussion. Objectives written in SMART format, but poorly linked to project aim. Purpose/aim and objectives not included and/or objectives not written in SMART format and linked to project aim.
Meets Expectations
(10 to >9 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(9 to >6 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(6 to >3 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(3 to >0 points)
QI Methodology QI model clearly described and comprehensively related to problem; includes justification and application. QI model identified and related to problem; includes justification and application. QI model identified but not clearly related to problem and/or does not include justification and/or application. Inappropriate QI model and/or does not relate to the problem and/or does not provide justification and application or QI model not identified.
Meets Expectations
(10 to >9 points) Nearly Meets Expectations
(9 to >6 points) Barely Meets Expectations
(6 to >3 points) Does Not Meet Expectations
(3 to >0 points)
Conclusion Addresses all conclusion components comprehensively. Addresses all conclusion components adequately. Addresses most conclusions components minimally. Addresses all conclusion components poorly or some components not addressed.
Exceeds Expectations
(No deduction) Meets Expectations
(1.0 – 5% deduction) Nearly Meets Expectations
(5.0 – 8% deduction) Does Not Meet Expectations
(8.0 – 10% deduction)
APA and Writing Scholarship APA format, references, and appendices (as appropriate) correct. Professional written communication and correct grammar are used. APA format, references, and appendices (as appropriate) have some errors. Some errors in written communication and grammar. APA format, references, and appendices (as appropriate) have frequent errors. Frequent errors in written communication and grammar. APA format, references, and appendices (as appropriate) have numerous and distracting errors. Written communication and grammar lack professionalism.
Total Points Possible 100 points
Weekly Sessions

This course is divided into weekly sessions. Unless otherwise indicated, assignments are due no later than 11:55 p.m. CST on the day identified and initial discussion posts are typically due on Wednesday with replies posted on Saturday.
Course Learning Activities

The following is a list of learning activities you will need to complete for each week. You will find more detailed instructions within the online course space.
Week 1: Introduction to Leadership and Quality/Safety Improvement
Week 1: Introduction to Leadership and Quality/Safety Improvement August 22 -28
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Armstrong & Sables-Baus textbook:

Chapter 3, “Leadership and Systems Thinking”
Chapter 4, “Quality Improvement: The Essentials”

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Discussion 1.1: Bongo Introduction

Post by
Friday

Respond by
Saturday
15 Points
Assignment 1.1: QSEN Quality Improvement and Safety Competencies Self-Assessment Sunday 20 Points
Week 2: Organizational Site Assessment
Week 2: Organizational Site Assessment August 29 -September 4
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Armstrong & Sables-Baus textbook:

Chapter 3, “Leadership and Systems Thinking”
Chapter 13, “The DNP Project – The Essentials” (p. 233)

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Assignment 2.1: Organizational Site Assessment Sunday 20 Points
Discussion 2.1: Stakeholder Identification

Post by
Wednesday

Respond by
Saturday
15 Points
Week 3: Transformational Leadership
Week 3: Transformational Leadership September 5 – 11
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following articles:

AACN DNP Essentials (PDF)Links to an external site.Links to an external site.
Guidelines to conducting effective meetings (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.), McNamara, C. (2018)
Frontline nurses and transformational leadership Download Frontline nurses and transformational leadership. American Nurse Journal, 16(3), 54- 55. Cook, K. (2021)
Transformational leadership: What every nursing dean should know Download Transformational leadership: What every nursing dean should know. Journal of Professional Nursing, 34, 117-121. Giddens, J (2017).
Transformational leadership and its evolution in nursing Download Transformational leadership and its evolution in nursing. Progress in Health Sciences, 8(1), 189-194. https://doi.org.10.5604/01.3001.0012.1114Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.). Krepia, V., Katsaragakis, S., Kaitelidou, D., & Prezerakos, P. (2018).

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Assignment 3.1: Elevator Speech

Due Sunday
25 Points

Assignment 3.2: Leadership Communication and Decision-Making
Due Sunday 25 Points
Week 4: Personal Power
Week 4: Personal Power September 12 – 18
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Armstrong & Sables-Baus textbook:

Chapter 2, “Effective Leadership”

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Discussion 4.1: Personal Power and Empowerment

Post by
Wednesday

Respond by
Saturday
15 Points
Week 5: Problem Identification
Week 5: Problem Identification September 19 – 25
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Armstrong & Sables-Baus textbook:

Chapter 12, “The DNP Project – The Essentials,” pages 222-234
Chapter 13, “Using an Evidence-Based Approach to Develop a DNP Project,” pages 252-254

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Assignment 5.1: Stakeholder Interview and Problem Statement Sunday 50 Points
Week 6: Leadership Inclusivity
Week 6: Leadership Inclusivity September 26 – October 2
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following articles:

Bourke, J, & Titus, A. (2019). Why inclusive leaders are good for organizations and how to become one(Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.). from the Harvard Business Review. Link to Article (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)
Rahim-Dillard, S. (2021). How inclusive is your leadership?(Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.) from the Harvard Business Review. Link to Article (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)
Randel, A.E., Galvin, B.M., Shore, L.M., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness.Download Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness.Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190-203. Link to Article (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)
(Links to an external site.)Van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W.P. (2021). A diversity mindset perspective on inclusive leadership Download A diversity mindset perspective on inclusive leadership. Group & Organizational Management, 0(0), 1-19. Link to Article (Links to an external site.)

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Discussion 6.1: Healthcare Leadership Inclusivity

Post by
Wednesday

Respond by
Saturday
15 Points
Week 7: Team Selection
Week 7: Team Selection October 3 – 9
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Armstrong & Sables-Baus textbook:
Chapter 8, “Leadership and Team Science”

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Discussion 7.1: Teamwork Science

Post by
Wednesday

Respond by
Saturday
15 Points
Assignment 7.1: Project Team Due Sunday 20 Points
Week 8: Emotional Competence
Week 8: Emotional Competence October 10 – 16
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following articles:

Frias, A., Hampton, D., Tharp-Barrie, K., & Thomas, J. (2021). The impact of an emotional intelligence training program on transformational leadership. (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.) Nursing Management, 52(2), 18-25. Download a PDF of the article Download a PDF of the article
Prezerakos, P.E. (2018). Nurse managers’ emotional intelligence and effective leadership: A review of the current evidence (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.). The Open Nursing Journal, 12, 86-92. Download a PDF of the article

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Assignment 8.1: Assessing Emotional Intelligence Due Sunday 25 Points

Week 9: Defining the Problem
Week 9: Defining the Problem October 14 – 23
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Armstrong & Sables-Baus textbook:

Chapter 9, “Leading Program Evaluation” pgs. 159-160
Chapter 5, “Leading Process Improvement” pgs. 77-90

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Assignment 9.1: Project Team (Worksheet)
Due Sunday

20 Points

Assignment 9.2: Teamwork Science (Discussion IPO)
Due Sunday

20 Points

Week 10: Leading with Quality Metrics
Week 10: Leading with Quality Metrics October 24 – 30
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following articles and chapters in your Armstrong & Sables-Baus textbook:

Chapter 7, “Leading with Quality Metrics”(pgs.109-129)
Chapter 9, “Leading Program Evaluation” (pgs. 147- 151)
Khalifa, M., & Khalid, P. (2015). Developing strategic health care key performance indicators: A case study on a tertiary care hospital. Procedia Computer Science, 63, 459-466 Link to article on Science Direct website (Links to an external site.)
Tossaint-Schoenmakers, R., Versluis, A., Chavannes, N., Talboom-Kamp, E., & Kasteleyn, M. (2021). The challenge of integrating eHealth into health care: Systematic literature review on the Donabedian model of structure, process, and outcome. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(5), e27180. Link to article on National Library of Medicine website (Links to an external site.)
(Links to an external site.)Willmington, C., Belardi, P., Murante, A.M., & Vainieri, M. (2022). The contribution of benchmarking to quality improvement in healthcare. A systematic literature review. BMC Health Services Research, 22(139), 1-20. Link to article on BMC website (Links to an external site.)

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Discussion 10.1: Measures of Quality

Post by
Wednesday
Respond by
Saturday 15 Points
Week 11: Setting Aims
Week 11: Setting Aims October 31 – November 6
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Armstrong & Sables-Baus textbook:

Chapter 13, “Using an Evidence-Based Approach to Develop a DNP Project” (pp. 264–266)
Chapter 4, “Quality Improvement: The Essentials” (pp. 69–70)
Chapter 7, “Leading with Quality Metrics” (pp. 109–129) (Quality Metric Resources)
Chapter 10, “Improvement and Big Data” (pp. 171–184)

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Discussion 11.1: Best Practice Evidence

Post by
Wednesday
Respond by
Saturday

15 Points
Assignment 11.1: Problem Validation and Project Aim

Due Sunday

30 Points

Week 12: Key Drivers
Week 12: Key Drivers November 7 – 13
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following for examples of the use of key driver diagram:

Norton, L.E., Lee, B.R., Harte, L., Mann, K., Newland, J.G., Grimes, A., & Myers, A.L. (2018). Improving guideline-based streptococcal pharyngitis testing: A quality improvement initiative. Download Improving guideline-based streptococcal pharyngitis testing: A quality improvement initiative.PEDIATRICS, 142(1), e:20172033. Link to article on American Academy of Pediatrics website. (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)
(Links to an external site.)Sullivan, E.E., Dwiel, K., Swain Hunt, L., Conroy, K., & Gergen Barnett, K. (2021). Moving the needle on primary care burnout: Using a driver diagram to accelerate impact. Download Moving the needle on primary care burnout: Using a driver diagram to accelerate impact. Healthcare, 9(4), 100595.Link to article on Science Direct website. (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Assignment 12.1: Key Driver Diagram Due Sunday 20 Points
Week 13: QI Project Tollgate
Week 13: QI Project Tollgate November 14 – 20
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Review the project examples and IHI Quality Improvement Project Overview information provided.
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Assignment 13.1: Project Charter Presentation Due Thursday

50 Points
Assignment 13.2: Project Charter Presentation Feedback Due Sunday

6 Points

Week 14: QI Methodologies
Week 14: QI Methodologies November 21 – 27
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following in your Armstrong & Sables-Baus textbook:

Chapter 4, “Quality Improvement: The Essentials” (pp. 61–70)
Chapter 5, “Leading Process Improvement” (pp. 81–93)
Chapter 12, “The DNP Project—The Essentials” (pp. 234–244)

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Discussion 14.1: QI Project Framework

Post by
Wednesday
Respond by
Saturday 15 Points

Week 15: QI Project Proposal
Week 15: QI Project Proposal November 28 – December 4
Learning Activity Due Date Points

Read the following articles:

QSEN Graduate Competencies
QSEN Quality Improvement

Not Applicable Not Applicable
Assignment 15.1: QI Project Proposal Due Friday 100 Points