NURS 8210 WEEK 2 DISCUSSION 1: PROFESSIONAL ROLE DEVELOPMENT

NURS 8210 WEEK 2 DISCUSSION 1: PROFESSIONAL ROLE DEVELOPMENT

NURS 8210 WEEK 2 DISCUSSION 1: PROFESSIONAL ROLE DEVELOPMENT

“Nursing research involves much planning and attention to details, yet novice and seasoned nurse researchers often overlook the day-to-day operations required to conduct research studies. Project management is a set of iterative steps that can facilitate the process of conducting nursing research” (Rew et al., 2020).

As you begin working on your nursing informatics project, consider how this project will plant the seed for your future work (in and out of an educational setting). How might what you do in this course lend itself to what you will need to do in nursing practice on a day-to-day basis? Why might it be important to consider this now versus later in your education or practice?

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NURS 8210 WEEK 2 DISCUSSION 1: PROFESSIONAL ROLE DEVELOPMENT HERE

Thanks for stopping by this assessment. We can assist you in completing it and other subsequent ones. Our expert writers will comprehensively review instructions, synthesize external evidence sources, and customize an A-grade paper for YOU!!!

Throughout this course, you are tasked designing a nursing informatics project. This project is steeped in project management concepts to drive your work.

For this Discussion, you will explore why this approach might not only will assist you in this course, but how it might assist you in nursing practice beyond your studies.

Reference:

Rew, L., Cauvin, S., Cengiz, A., Pretorius, K., & Johnson, K. (2020). Application of project management tools and techniques to support nursing intervention research. Nursing Outlook, 68(4), 396–405. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2020.01.007

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Sipes, C. (2020). Project management for the advanced practice nurse (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing.

Chapter 8, “Case Studies: Applying Project Management Concepts and Tools” (pp. 190–210)

Chapter 3, “Design/Initiation: Project Management—Phase 1”

(pp. 50–74)

“SWOT” (p. 165)

American Nurses Association. (2015). Nursing informaticsLinks to an external site.: Scope and standards of practice (2nd ed.).

“Metastructures, Concepts, and Tools of Nursing Informatics” (pp. 2–6)

“Professional Practice Areas for Nursing Informatics” (pp. 7-9)

“Standard 3: Outcomes Identification” (p. 71)

“Standard 4: Planning” (p. 72)

Eby, K. (2017). The complete glossary of project management terminologyLinks to an external site.. Smartsheet. https://www.smartsheet.com/complete-glossary-project-management-terminology

HealthIT.gov. (n.d.). Health information technology advisory committeeLinks to an external site. (HITAC). https://www.healthit.gov/hitac/committees/health-information-technology-advisory-committee-hitac

Howarth, M. L., Probyn, J. E., & Maz, J. (2017). Project management techniques to maximise success with research. British Journal of Cardiac Nursing Download British Journal of Cardiac Nursing, 12(3), 116–119. doi:10.12968/bjca.2017.12.3.116

Project management techniques to maximise success with research by Howarth, M. L., Probyn, J. E., & Maz, J., in British Journal of Cardiac Nursing, Vol. 12 /Issue 3. Copyright 2017 by MA Healthcare. Reprinted by permission of MA Healthcare via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Marcilly, R., Schiro, J., Beuscart-Zéphir, M. C., & Magrabi, F. (2019). Building usability knowledge for health information technology: A usability-oriented analysis of incident reportsLinks to an external site.. Applied Clinical Informatics, 10(3), 395–408. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1691841

Nøhr, C., Kuziemsky, C. E., Elkin, P. L., Marcilly, R., & Pelayo, S. (2019). Sustainable health informatics: Health informaticians as alchemistsLinks to an external site.. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 265, 3–11. doi:10.3233/SHTI190129

Powell, K. R., & Alexander, G. L. (2019). Mitigating barriers to interoperability in health careLinks to an external site.. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics, 23(2). https://www.himss.org/resources/mitigating-barriers-interoperability-health-care

Rew, L., Cauvin, S., Cengiz, A., Pretorius, K., & Johnson, K. (2020). Application of project management tools and techniques to support nursing intervention researchLinks to an external site.. Nursing Outlook, 68(4), 396–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2020.01.007

Riol, H., & Thuillier, D. (2015). Project management for academic research projects: Balancing structure and flexibility Download Project management for academic research projects: Balancing structure and flexibility. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 7(3), 251–269. doi:10.1504/IJPOM.2015.070792

Project management for academic research projects: Balancing structure and fliexibility by Riol, H., & Thuillier, D., in International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, Vol. 7 /Issue 3. Copyright 2015 by INDERSCIENCE ENTERPRISES LTD. Reprinted by permission of INDERSCIENCE ENTERPRISES LTD via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Staggers, N., Elias, B. L., Makar, E. D., & Alexander, G. L. (2018). The imperative of solving nurses’ usability problems with health information technologyLinks to an external site.. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 48(4), 191–196. doi:10.1097/NNA.0000000000000598

Required Media

virtualstrategist. (2016, October 19). How to perform a SWOT AnalysisLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_6AVRGLXGA

Optional Resources

Van de Velde, S., Kunnamo, I., Roshanov, P., Kortteisto, T., Aertgeerts, B., Vandvik, P. O., Flottorp, S., & GUIDES expert panel. (2018). The GUIDES checklist: Development of a tool to improve the successful use of guideline-based computerised clinical decision supportLinks to an external site.. Implementation Science. https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-018-0772-3

TO PREPARE

Review the Learning Resources for this week and reflect on the roles of advanced nursing practice as it relates to project management.

Select one of the roles described in Chapter 8 of the Sipes text to focus on for this Discussion.

Review the article by Rew et al. (2020) and reflect on the steps and processes used by the team described in the article.

How might you use a similar approach for the completion of your DNP doctoral project or dissertation? What project management strategies might be most appropriate for your nursing research?

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 2

Post a response for the following:

Explain which project management processes and techniques you believe will provide the most guidance to assist you plan and develop your DNP doctoral project or Dissertation. Be specific and provide examples.

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 2

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days who selected a different advanced nursing practice role than you. Expand upon your colleague’s posting or offer an alternative perspective.

NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion1_Rubric

NURS_8210_Week2_Discussion1_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 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 library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)
20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NURS 8210 WEEK 2 DISCUSSION 1: PROFESSIONAL ROLE DEVELOPMENT HERE

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)
30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.

18 to >0 pts

Poor

Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)

10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
10 pts

Total Points: 100