Expert Homework Help Online & Write My Essay Service

Hire best homework helpers for online homework help 24/7. Are you looking for online homework help? Try our excellent homework help who can help you get A+ grade in your assignment.

Order my paper
Calculate your essay price
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

19 k happy customers
9.5 out of 10 satisfaction rate
527 writers active

Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement Efforts

Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement EffortsDiscussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement EffortsEvaluation 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, 2013ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HEREIn 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.Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement EffortsConsider 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.Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement EffortsRead 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)Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement EffortsThe 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/51234252/51234314/2e0c84fdce3c69ab0253b5cbc9db9988Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement EffortsIn 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.aspxInstitute for Healthcare Improvement. (2012b). The IHI triple aim. Retrieved from http://www.ihi.org/offerings/Initiatives/TripleAim/Pages/default.aspxOptional ResourcesMarr, B. (2012). What is a balanced scorecard? Retrieved from http://www.ap-institute.com/Balanced%20Scorecard.htmlDiscussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement EffortsPlease 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/51234252/51234314/2e0c84fdce3c69ab0253b5cbc9db9988MSN Discussion RubricCriteria Levels of Achievement  Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Room for Improvement Poor PerformanceContent-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.Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement Efforts 24 to 26 pointsMain posting meets expectations. All criteria are addressed with 50% containing good breadth and depth. 21 to 23 pointsMain posting addresses most of the criteria. One to two criterion are not addressed or superficially addressed.Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement Efforts 0 to 20 pointsMain 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.Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement Efforts 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 pointsResponds 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 pointsResponds 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 pointsResponds 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.Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement Efforts 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  Communication Effectiveness 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.Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement Efforts 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.Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement Efforts 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.Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement Efforts 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 pointsAll criteria met: Initial post submitted on time. Response to two peer initial posts. Response on 3 separate days. -5 to 0 points5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers or 5 points deducted for responding less than three days. -10 to -5 points5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers and 5 points deducted for responding less than three days. -10 to -10 points10 points deducted for Initial post submitted late. -20 to -15 pointsInitial 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.Discussion: Using Evaluation Tools to Assess Quality Improvement Efforts

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more
error: