NURS 8210 WEEK 4 DISCUSSION: CHANGE THEORIES, SYSTEMS THINKING, IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE

NURS 8210 WEEK 4 DISCUSSION: CHANGE THEORIES, SYSTEMS THINKING, IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE

NURS 8210 WEEK 4 DISCUSSION: CHANGE THEORIES, SYSTEMS THINKING, IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE

Never have we had vast amounts of data at our fingertips like we do today. However, before we can meaningfully access and use data for interpretation, it must be transformed. To derive meaning from the data collected, you need to understand that data collection is rapidly changing and constantly evolving. The methods with which data is collected, analyzed, and used to justify, support, or lend credibility to research aims, are all important considerations for the nurse researcher. As it relates to Big Data, the methods of how data is collected, analyzed, and used for implementation is also important. While the availability of data collection certainly has its advantages, many researchers point to the concerns over Big Data.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NURS 8210 WEEK 4 DISCUSSION: CHANGE THEORIES, SYSTEMS THINKING, IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE 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!!!

For this Discussion, reflect on your understanding of Big Data and the implications for implementation. Consider the impact of research as it relates to collection via Big Data and consider how this impact might lead to potential barriers in implementation and practice gaps. Reflect on your experience and consider how these key issues might impact nursing practice.

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 4, “Planning: Project Management—Phase 2” (pp. 75–120)

Chapter 2, “Foundational Project Management Theories that Support Decision-Making” (pp. 22–25)

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

“Standard 1: Assessment” (pp. 68–69)

“Standard 2: Diagnosis, Problems and Issues Identification” (p. 70)

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

“Standard 4: Planning” (p. 72)

Thompson, T. (2019). 6 steps to mastering the theoretical framework of a dissertationLinks to an external site.. ServiceScape. https://www.servicescape.com/blog/6-steps-to-mastering-the-theoretical-framework-of-a-dissertation

Wensing, M., & Grol, R. (2019). Knowledge translation in health: How implementation science could contribute moreLinks to an external site.. BMC Medicine, 17(88). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1322-9

Required Media

Analytics Guy. (2020, August 25). Developing understanding using the DIKW pyramidLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DoQ9gY4z4

Jonna B. (2019, April 21). Explaining Kurt Lewin’s change theoryLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtaYloI-WAQ

IRL – Research and Science Course. (2019, August 30). What is implementation scienceLinks to an external site.? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvk-cpDptOc

Massachusetts DESE. (2020, February 25). Introduction to implementation scienceLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJoNkAavMEY

Project Manager. (2018, July 2). Risk Analysis How to Analyze Risks on Your Project – Project Management TrainingLinks to an external site.. [Video]. YouTube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5ZrPeQW8HQ

Sustainability Science Education. (2019, August 23). What is systems thinkingLinks to an external site.? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW6MXqzeg7M

Systems Innovation. (2018, October 27). Systems analysisLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M14kFg88Vk0

The Seas. (2015, November 23). Chapter 13 systems analysis and designLinks to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7YMEnnxjJ8

Optional Resources

Vaishya, R., Haleem, A., Vaish, A., & Javaid, M. (2020). Emerging technologies to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology, 10(4), 409–411.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jceh.2020.04.019

Zipfel, N., van der Nat, P. B., Rensing, B. J. W. M., Daeter, E. J., Westert, G. P., & Groenewoud, A. S. (2019). The implementation of change model adds value to value-based healthcare: A qualitative studyLinks to an external site.. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 643. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4498-y

TO PREPARE

Review the Learning Resources for this week, focusing specifically on the implementation science articles and web resources.

Consider the issues related to research and Big Data.

Review Lewin’s Change Theory, systems thinking, and implementation science resources provided in the media this week.

Consider the importance of these theories and frameworks to your healthcare organization or nursing practice.

Explore two additional theories or models related to change, systems, or implementation science to focus on for this discussion.

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 4

Analyze informatics frameworks and models that are applicable to healthcare organizations and nursing practice. What are the key principles and best practices that you can leverage from these frameworks to support your practice?

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 4

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days. Expand upon your colleague’s posting or offer an alternative perspective.

NURS_8210_Week4_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_8210_Week4_Discussion_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

• 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

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NURS 8210 WEEK 4 DISCUSSION: CHANGE THEORIES, SYSTEMS THINKING, IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE HERE

• 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