Discussion: NURS 8100 Week 3 The Policy Process

Discussion: NURS 8100 Week 3 The Policy Process

Discussion: NURS 8100 Week 3 The Policy Process

This week, you will investigate the process of creating health care policy beginning with agenda setting and the policy proposal. How does an issue move along the continuum from simple discussion to policy development? How do you identify key stakeholders and enlist their support in moving a health care issue forward?

To gain experience in the policy process, you will critically analyze recommendations from the Institute of Medicine’s The Future of Nursing report brief and create a policy brief based on your analysis. These are skills that advanced nursing practice requires, and which support your ability to participate in public policy making at all levels: institutional, local, state, national, and international.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

• Develop strategies for raising clinical practice issues to an organization’s systematic agenda
• Critically analyze a health policy proposal from the perspective of consumers, nurses, other health professionals, and additional stakeholders
  

  ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

  Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

• Develop a scholarly and professionally written policy brief

Learning Resources

Required Readings

Hyder, A., Syed, S., Puvanachandra, P., Bloom, G., Sundaram, S., Mahmood, S., … Peters, D. (2010). Stakeholder analysis for health research: case studies from low- and middle-income countries. Public Health, 124(3), 159–166.

This study demonstrates how the engagement of stakeholders in research and policy making can assist in the successful implementation of policy proposals. The authors propose that by engaging stakeholders, researchers and policy makers are provided with multiple perspectives on proposed policies, which can lead to greater success with policy adoption and implementation.

Lavis, J. N., Permanand, G., Oxman, A. D., Lewin, S., & Fretheim, A. (2009). SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Research Policy & Systems, Health Research Policy & Systems, 71–79. 

The purpose of a policy brief is to communicate an issue clearly and definitively to policy makers. The authors of this article propose an outline for policy briefs and also stress the importance of using research when creating a policy brief.

Lowery, B. (2009). Obesity, bariatric nursing, and the policy process: The connecting points for patient advocacy. Bariatric Nursing & Surgical Patient Care, 4(2), 133-138.

This article provides an example of nurse involvement in policy making by examining a bariatric nursing issue. The author stresses that nurses, in their patient-advocacy role, have a responsibility to be involved in the health care policy process.

Moore, K. (2006). How can basic research on children and families be useful for the policy process? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52(2), 365–375.

Institute of Medicine. (2010). Report brief: The future of nursing: Leading change, advancing health. 

Introduced in Week 2, this IOM report highlights four key recommendations in its proposal for the future directions of the nursing profession. These recommendations focus on nursing practice, education and training, partnerships with other healthcare professionals, and workforce planning and policymaking.

National Center for Policy Analysis (2010). Ideas changing the world: Free-market health care policy. Retrieved from http://www.ncpathinktank.org/healthcare

The NCPA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes private sector solutions to public policy issues.

Required Media

Walden University, LLC. (Executive Producer). (2011). Healthcare policy and advocacy: Agenda setting and the policy process. Baltimore: Author.

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 17 minutes.

Dr. Kathleen White and Dr. Joan Stanley share their insights into agenda setting and how issues are moved forward into the policy process.

Optional Resources

Barnes, M., Hanson, C., Novilla, L., Meacham, A., McIntyre, E., & Erickson, B. (2008). Analysis of media agenda setting during and after Hurricane Katrina: Implications for emergency preparedness, disaster response, and disaster policy. American Journal of Public Health, 98(4), 604–610.

Jennings, C. (2002). The power of the policy brief. Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice, 3(3), 261–263. doi: 10.1177/152715440200300310

Neumann, P. J., Palmer, J. A., Daniels, N., Quigley, K., Gold, M. R., & Chao, S. (2008). A strategic plan for integrating cost-effectiveness analysis into the US health care system. American Journal of Managed Care, 14(4), 185-188.

Plan, Policy, Procedure Relationship Diagram. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.informationsecurityintel.com/docs/Fig.%204.3.pdf

Discussion: Agenda Setting

A key aspect of the policy process is agenda setting. How do topics get on that agenda? Agenda setting requires the support of stakeholders to move the issue forward. In this week’s media presentation, Dr. Kathleen White outlines the policy process and discusses how to move issues into the policy arena through agenda setting. The ultimate goal is to gain the attention of leadership whether at the organizational, local, state, national, or international level.

To prepare:

• Review this week’s media presentation, focusing on the insights shared by Dr. White and Dr. Stanley on agenda setting and identification of stakeholders.
• Brainstorm clinical practice issues that you believe are worthy of being on your organization’s systematic agenda.
• Who are the stakeholders who would be interested in this clinical practice issue?

By Day 3

Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

• In the first line of your posting, identify the clinical practice issue you would like to see on your organization’s systematic agenda.
• What strategies would you use to inform stakeholders and persuade them of the importance of your identified clinical practice issue?

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

By Day 6

Respond to at least two of your colleagues providing additional strategies for informing and persuading stakeholders. Include additional research evidence that supports the importance of their identified clinical practice issue.

Note: Please see the Syllabus and Discussion Rubric for formal Discussion question posting and response evaluation criteria.

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.

Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 3 Discussion RubricPost by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 3 Discussion

Assignment 1: Issues in Health Care Reform (Interview)

Continue to work on this Application, assigned in Week 2 and due in Week 9.

You should be actively scheduling your interview appointment. As you begin considering the health issue you intend to discuss with your interviewee, determine where it is on the public’s agenda: the systematic or formal agenda. How might you persuade your interviewee of the importance of this issue? How could your interviewee assist with getting this issue on the systematic or formal agenda?

Assignment 2: Health Policy Proposal Analysis (Policy Brief)

Nurses engaged in the policy arena often are asked to provide information on a health care topic of interest to policy makers. This is frequently accomplished through developing a policy brief. A policy brief advocates for a particular recommendation (prior to the enactment of a policy). Learning how to write a policy brief in a clear, succinct, scholarly, and professional manner is an essential skill for advanced practice nurses.

For this Assignment, you will assess one of the recommendations from the Institute of Medicine’s The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health: Report Recommendations. You will then develop a policy brief to advocate for this recommendation (the written policy brief is due in Week 7).

To prepare:

• Review the Lavis et al. article on preparing and writing policy briefs provided in the Learning Resources.
• Select one of the recommendations within the IOM The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health: Report Recommendations to focus on for this assignment.
• Research the history of the problem behind the recommendation and what has been done to try to solve the problem.
• What does the recommendation say should be done? Are there any groups, nursing and others, currently supporting work to implement the recommendation (e.g., Kaiser Family Foundation, professional organizations)? Does the recommendation suggest specific groups that should be involved in the implementation? Think critically about how the recommendation should be implemented – did the IOM get it right? What other strategies are possible to consider?

By Day 7 of Week 7

To complete:

• Develop a scholarly and professionally written 2- to 3-page single-spaced policy brief on the recommendation you selected from the IOM report following the format presented in the Lavis et al. article. Include the following:
  • Short introduction with statement of the problem.
  • The selected recommendation (from the IOM Report)
  • Background
  • Current characteristics
  • The impact of the recommendation from the perspective of consumers, nurses, other health professionals, and additional stakeholders
  • Current solutions
  • Current status in the health policy arena
  • Final conclusions
  • Resources used to create the policy brief

Due by Day 7 of Week 7. Complete instructions for submitting your Assignment are provided in the Week 7 Assignment area.

Note: You will post a summary of your policy brief in the Week 7 Discussion.

Week in Review

This week, you developed strategies for raising clinical practice issues to an organizations agenda and also developed a scholarly and professionally written policy brief. You also analyzed a health policy proposal from the perspective of consumers, nurses, and other health professionals and stakeholders.

Next week, you will examine policy process and discover how frameworks from nursing and other disciplines can work together to inform policy analysis.

To go to the next week:

Week 4

Name: NURS_8100_Week3_Discussion_Rubric

• Grid View
• List View

		Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION Discussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.		Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE		Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.	Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION		Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.	Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING		Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.	Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%) Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
Total Points: 30

Name: NURS_8100_Week3_Discussion_Rubric

A Sample Of This Assignment Written By One Of Our Top-rated Writers

Discussion: NURS 8100 Week 3 The Policy Process

Poor management of diabetic ulcers among new grad nurses is the identified clinical issue I would wish to see on my organization’s systematic agenda. The clinical issue is crucial since it has been associated with poor health outcomes, high morbidity and mortality rates, and high healthcare costs (Raghav et al., 2018). The issue is associated with inadequate formal training and limited experience in managing patients with diabetic ulcers. Therefore, prioritizing the clinical issue is important as it would improve patient outcomes, reduce morbidity and mortality rates associated with diabetic ulcers, increase patient satisfaction, and lower healthcare costs.

Stakeholder support when addressing a clinical issue is crucial to the successful implementation. It is thus essential to involve stakeholders in each stage of addressing the clinical issue to promote early buy-in, successful design of a quality improvement program, and promote continuing support for the program (Kim et al., 2018). The strategies I would employ to inform stakeholders of the magnitude of the clinical practice issue include using telephone calls and digital methods such as e-mail and formal letters. Besides, I would arrange individual and group meetings with the stakeholders to inform them of the clinical issue, its impact, and why it needs immediate attention (Thizy et al., 2019). I would persuade them to engage in addressing the issue by providing them with clear, balanced, and objective data about the clinical issue. I would provide the stakeholders with access to data with varying degrees of detail and complexity so that they can address the clinical issue at a level they are most suitable with (Thizy et al., 2019). Besides, I would research the stakeholders and identify who is best positioned to address the various aspects of the clinical issue. 

References

Kim, K. K., Khodyakov, D., Marie, K., Taras, H., Meeker, D., Campos, H. O., & Ohno-Machado, L. (2018). A novel stakeholder engagement approach for patient-centered outcomes research. Medical care, 56(10 Suppl 1), S41. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000790

Raghav, A., Khan, Z. A., Labala, R. K., Ahmad, J., Noor, S., & Mishra, B. K. (2018). Financial burden of diabetic foot ulcers to world: a progressive topic to discuss always. Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology and Metabolism, 29–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042018817744513

Thizy, D., Emerson, C., Gibbs, J., Hartley, S., Kapiriri, L., Lavery, J., … & Robinson, B. (2019). Guidance on stakeholder engagement practices to inform the development of area-wide vector control methods. PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 13(4), e0007286. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0007286