NURS 6231: HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS AND QUALITY OUTCOMES – Discussion 9 (Grading Rubic and Media Attached)

Relax! Stop worrying about deadlines and let our professional writers help you. Hire an essay writer helper and receive a professional assignment before your deadline. We provide writing services for all types of academic assignments.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper


Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement Efforts


Evaluation is a critical component of any quality improvement plan. This week, you examine evaluation tools that can be used to monitor quality improvement efforts, and consider how to appropriately measure outcomes. In addition, you explore the value of metrics for communicating this information.


Also this week, you continue to develop your Course Project by synthesizing your analysis and recommendations into an action plan for a quality improvement initiative.

Like most other things in life, outcomes are the bottom line with respect to measurement of success along the path of quality improvement. However, without a careful analysis of the link between access, process, and structure of care, improvements in outcomes seem unattainable.

—Sadeghi, Barzi, Mikhail, & Shabot, 2013

In this Discussion, you consider how to collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate the results of quality improvement initiatives. In addition, you discuss the significance of evaluation and how you, as a nurse leader-manager, can contribute in an organization to the large-scale goal of facilitating quality improvement.

To prepare:

Review methods for measuring and evaluating quality improvement efforts presented in the Learning Resources. Pay particular attention to how and why it is important to measure outcomes.

Select one evaluation tool and analyze its benefits and relevance for the quality improvement plan you are developing for your Course Project.

Consider how you, as a nurse leader-manager, can use the results from the evaluation to support the organization’s overarching goals for quality improvement.


Post a brief description of the evaluation tool that you selected. Explain the benefits of applying this tool as part of your quality improvement plan in the Course Project. Also explain how you could use the results from the evaluation to support the organization’s overarching goals for quality improvement.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days using one or more of the following approaches:

Suggest an alternative evaluation tool and support your suggestion with evidence from current research literature.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional resources.


Required Readings

Hickey, J. V., & Brosnan, C. A. (2017). Evaluation  of health care quality in for DNPs (2nd  ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Review Chapter 3, “Conceptual Models for Evaluation in Advanced Nursing Practice” (pp. 61-86) (assigned in Week 3)

Sadeghi, S., Barzi, A., Mikhail, O., & Shabot, M. M. (2013). Integrating quality and strategy in health care organizations, Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Review Chapter 8, “Quantifying the Quality Performance Gaps” (pp. 161–177) (assigned in Week 6)

The authors focus on performance measures with particular focus on the relationship between financial and quality performance.

Review Chapter 9, “Closing the Gaps” (pp. 179–194) (assigned in Week 7)

This chapter explains how to utilize data collected during the evaluation stage in order to improve the quality of health care.

Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Retrieved from https://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2001/Crossing-the-Quality-Chasm/Quality%20Chasm%202001%20%20report%20brief.pdf

This report outlines the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM’s) six aims to improve the quality of health care. Review this information through the lens of evaluation. (Assigned in a previous week.)

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard—Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.

Retrieved from https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/pl/51234252/51234314/2e0c84fdce3c69ab0253b5cbc9db9988

In this seminal article, the authors introduce the use of a new performance measurement system called the balanced scorecard. The balanced scorecard provides a comprehensive framework for leaders and managers to align strategic objectives with performance measures.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. California Management Review, 39(1), 53–79.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

In this early follow-up article, Kaplan and Norton further explain research on the use and application of the balanced scorecard.

Balanced Scorecard Institute. (2012). What is the balanced scorecard? Retrieved from http://www.balancedscorecard.org/BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/tabid/55/Default.aspx

Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (2012b). The IHI triple aim. Retrieved from http://www.ihi.org/offerings/Initiatives/TripleAim/Pages/default.aspx

Optional Resources

Marr, B. (2012). What is a balanced scorecard? Retrieved from http://www.ap-institute.com/Balanced%20Scorecard.html

Please use the below links:

https://www.ap-institute.com/kpi-white-papers/what-is-a-modern-balanced-scorecard

http://www.ihi.org/engage/initiatives/TripleAim/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.balancedscorecard.org/Resources/About-the-Balanced-Scorecard

https://services.hbsp.harvard.edu/services/proxy/content/51234252/51234314/2e0c84fdce3c69ab0253b5cbc9db9988

NURS 6231: HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS AND QUALITY OUTCOMES – Discussion 9 (Grading Rubic and Media Attached)
MSN Discussion Rubric Criteria Levels of Achievement Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Room for Improvement Poor Performance Content-Main Posting 30 to 30 points -Main posting addresses all criteria with 75% of post exceptional depth and breadth supported by credible references. 27 to 29 points -Main posting addresses all criteria with 75% of post exceptional depth and breadth supported by credible references. 24 to 26 points Main posting meets expectations. All criteria are addressed with 50% containing good breadth and depth. 21 to 23 points Main posting addresses most of the criteria. One to two criterion are not addressed or superficially addressed. 0 to 20 points Main posting does not address all of criteria, superficially addresses criteria. Two or more criteria are not addressed. Course Requirements and Attendance 20 to 20 points -Responds to two colleagues’ with posts that are reflective, are justified with credible sources, and ask questions that extend the Discussion. 18 to 19 points -Responds to two colleagues’ with posts that are reflective, are justified with credible sources, and ask questions that extend the Discussion. 16 to 17 points Responds to a minimum of two colleagues’ posts, are reflective, and ask questions that extend the Discussion. One post is justified by a credible source. 14 to 15 points Responds to less than two colleagues’ posts. Posts are on topic, may have some depth, or questions. May extend the Discussion. No credible sources are cited. 0 to 13 points Responds to less than two colleagues’ posts. Posts may not be on topic, lack depth, do not pose questions that extend the Discussion. Scholarly Writing Quality 30 to 30 points -The main posting clearly addresses the Discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with more than two credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors. ***The use of scholarly sources or real life experiences needs to be included to deepen the Discussion and earn points in reply to fellow students. 27 to 29 points -The main posting clearly addresses the Discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with more than two credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors. 24 to 26 points -The main posting clearly addresses the Discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with a minimum of two current credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. Contains one to two spelling or grammatical errors. 21 to 23 points -The main posting is not clearly addressing the Discussion criteria and is not written concisely. The main posting is cited with less than two credible references that may lack credibility and/or do not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. 0 to 20 points -The main posting is disorganized and has one reference that may lack credibility and does not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition or has zero credible references. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Professional CommunicationEffectiveness 20 to 20 points -Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues and response to faculty questions are answered if posed. -Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly Discussion topic. 18 to 19 points -Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are cited with at least one credible reference per post and a probing question that extends the Discussion. Adheres to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors. 16 to 17 points -Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are cited with at least one credible and/or contain probing questions that extends the Discussion. Adheres to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have one to two spelling or grammatical errors. 14 to 15 points -Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -Provides opinions that may not be concise or ideas not effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication that does not extend the Discussion, leads to an exchange of ideas and/or not focused on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are not cited and/or do not contain a probing question. May not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have more than two spelling or grammatical errors. 0 to 13 points -Communication may lack professional tone or be disrespectful to colleagues. -Provides opinions that may not be concise or ideas not effectively written in Standard Edited English -Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication through discussion that does not extend the Discussion, do not lead to an exchange of ideas and/or not focused on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are not cited and do not contain a probing question. May not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have multiple spelling or grammatical errors. Timely Submission 0 to 0 points All criteria met: Initial post submitted on time. Response to two peer initial posts. Response on 3 separate days. -5 to 0 points 5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers or 5 points deducted for responding less than three days. -10 to -5 points 5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers and 5 points deducted for responding less than three days. -10 to -10 points 10 points deducted for Initial post submitted late. -20 to -15 points Initial post submitted late and 5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers and/ or 5 points deducted for responding less than three days. © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 5 of 5

Great students hand in great papers. Order our essay service if you want to meet all the deadlines on time and get top grades. Professional custom writing is the choice of goal-focused students. Word on the online streets is... we're simply the best!

Get a 15% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE15


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper