Preventing and Promoting Healing of Pressure Ulcers (Essay Sample)

OMPETENCIES
7064.1.1 : Leadership Skills and Approaches
The graduate determines the effective leadership skills and approaches required to navigate a diverse staff in a changing healthcare environment.
7064.1.2 : Culture of Innovation
The graduate creates communication and change management plans to foster a culture of innovation.
7064.1.3 : Essential Business Practices for Nurse Leaders
The graduate analyzes data to measure progress in meeting organizational performance indicators in complex healthcare systems.
7064.1.4 : Effective Teams
The graduate determines system-level factors necessary to support and empower interprofessional teams.
7064.1.5 : Performance Measures
The graduate validates key performance indicators to measure the impact of nursing care on patient and population outcomes.
7064.1.6 : Strategic Planning
The graduate proposes a strategic business plan to start a nurse-managed practice.
INTRODUCTION
During your previous Core Courses, you completed assessments that prepared you for many different types of Advanced Professional Nurse leadership roles. For this assessment you will assume one of the most important roles in nursing, which is that of a Nurse Innovator. Innovation in healthcare can take many forms, ranging from enhancing the patient experience to improving the overall health of populations. This may involve new forms of health professional training, patient education, care coordination, financial management, service delivery models or population health improvement initiatives.
While completing your Clinical/Practice Experiences (CPE) for D031 Advancing Evidence-Based Innovation in Nursing Practice, you met with key stakeholders from the Academic or Healthcare setting you selected, to explore innovative ideas for change. During these discussions, you selected one innovative idea that will become the basis for writing your Evidence-Based Innovation Plan for this assessment.
REQUIREMENTS
Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. The originality report that is provided when you submit your task can be used as a guide.
You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.
Create an innovation plan proposal using the attached “Evidence-Based Innovation Plan Template.”
A. Introduce your innovation proposal by doing the following:
1. Explain the role of an innovative nurse leader.
2. Summarize the community of practice (CoP) established during your CPE, including the following points:
a. organizational characteristics, services provided, and size of the service area
b. demographic characteristics of the population served
c. team member roles—formal and informal
d. shared team values
3. Focusing on the organization identified in your CPE, discuss the internal and external factors that prompted this proposal.
4. Assess how your proposed innovation aligns to other professional, regulatory, and/or governmental strategic initiatives.
5. Construct a purpose statement for your proposed innovation.
6. Create a goal of the proposed innovation in SMART+C format (i.e., Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timed, and Challenging).
B. Complete a “Relevant Sources Review” by doing the following:
1. Identify five scholarly peer-reviewed sources published within the last five years that are relevant to your innovation proposal.
2. Summarize your findings from each source, using the Relevant Sources Summary Table in the attached “Evidence-Based Innovation Plan Template.”
3. Identify the evidence strength and the hierarchy of each source, using the WGU levels of evidence hierarchy outlined in the attached “WGU Levels of Evidence” document.
4. Synthesize your findings by identifying patterns, trends, and gaps in the literature as they relate to the proposed innovation.
5. Develop recommendations for the proposed innovation based on the literature.
C. Discuss the data-collection methods and technology used to identify and support the proposed innovation by doing the following:
1. Explain the process you used to generate ideas for an innovation from the CoP.
2. Provide examples of big and small data within your current healthcare setting.
3. Discuss how big data could be used to support the proposed innovation.
4. Describe technology enhancements required for the proposed innovation.
D. Discuss how to support interprofessional collaboration in the midst of disruptive innovation by doing the following:
1. Analyze how disruption from the proposed innovation could impact individuals, processes, and organizations.
2. Develop strategies to mitigate the challenges of disruption for individuals, processes, and organizations.
3. Discuss how the proposed innovation can leverage benefits of disruptive innovation for cost-effective, quality healthcare outcomes.
E. Discuss your pre-implementation plan by doing the following:
1. Discuss diffusion of innovation as it relates to the implementation of your plan.
2. Identify the roles and responsibilities of five team members needed to implement your proposal using the Innovation Action Plan table in the attached “Evidence-Based Innovation Plan Template.”
3. Discuss the financial implications of implementing the proposed innovation.
4. Develop an interprofessional communication plan accounting for the logistics (i.e., the who, what, when, and where) of facilitating the innovation and its usability.
5. Discuss how you will evaluate the effectiveness of your proposed innovation.
F. Conclude your innovation proposal by doing the following:
1. Reiterate the purpose and rationale for your proposed innovation.
2. Reflect on your experience identifying an innovation for your setting.
3. Discuss the strengths and challenges of the process used for developing this innovation plan.
4. Discuss how you will apply what you have learned for future initiatives.
G. Submit your formal narrative paper in APA style, including but not limited to title page, headers, in-text citations, tables, figures, appendices, and references.
H. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.
NOTE: The Performance Assessment should be uploaded as a separate attachment(s) and should not be included in the E-portfolio or submitted as a link.
File Restrictions
File name may contain only letters, numbers, spaces, and these symbols: ! - _ . * ' ( )
File size limit: 200 MB
File types allowed: doc, docx, rtf, xls, xlsx, ppt, pptx, odt, pdf, txt, qt, mov, mpg, avi, mp3, wav, mp4, wma, flv, asf, mpeg, wmv, m4v, svg, tif, tiff, jpeg, jpg, gif, png, zip, rar, tar, 7z
RUBRIC
A1:EXPLANATION OF ROLE
NOT EVIDENT
An explanation of an innovative nurse leader role is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The explanation of the innovative nurse leader role omits key characteristics of the nurse innovator or behaviors of innovation leadership, or it contains inaccuracies. Or the explanation is poorly supported or missing relevant examples.
COMPETENT
The explanation of the innovative nurse leader role contains accurate characteristics of the nurse innovator and behaviors of innovation leadership. The explanation is well-supported by a scholarly reference and includes examples relevant to the role.
A2A:ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
NOT EVIDENT
A summary of the CoP’s organizational characteristics, services provided, and service area size is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The summary omits key organizational characteristics of the CoP, including type, setting, or structure. Or the summary inaccurately describes services provided or the size of the service area. Or the summary of the services provided is limited in detail.
COMPETENT
The summary includes an accurate description of organizational characteristics of the CoP, including type, setting, and structure. The summary accurately describes the services provided and size of the service area and offers in-depth details about the services provided.
A2B:DEMOGRAPHICS
NOT EVIDENT
A summary of the demographic characteristics of the population served is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The summary of the demographic characteristics of the population served is incomplete or not effectively supported by quantitative and qualitative data. Or the characteristics described are not plausible or appropriate to the population served.
COMPETENT
The summary of the demographic characteristics of the population served is effectively supported with quantitative and qualitative data. The characteristics described are plausible and appropriate to the population served.
A2C:TEAM MEMBER ROLES
NOT EVIDENT
Team members and their roles are not identified.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The team members are not correctly identified with their respective roles. Or the summary of the roles of team members is incomplete or irrelevant to the proposed change or does not encompass formal or informal roles.
COMPETENT
The team members are accurately identified and their respective roles are relevant to the proposed change. The summary encompass informal and formal roles.
A2D:SHARED TEAM VALUES
NOT EVIDENT
A summary of the shared team values is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The summary of the shared team values within the organization is incomplete or not supported by real examples. Or the summary does not address the significance of the values to the team.
COMPETENT
A summary is provided of the shared goals of the organization and the team. The discussion is supported by real examples.
A3:DISCUSSION OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FACTORS
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not discuss factors that prompted the innovation proposal.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission discusses factors that prompted the innovation proposal but is missing internal or external factors. Or the factors discussed are not plausible. Or the discussion does not clearly connect the listed factors to the proposal.
COMPETENT
The submission discusses internal and external factors that prompted the innovation proposal, and the factors discussed are plausible.
A4:ALIGNMENT TO STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
NOT EVIDENT
An assessment of the alignment of the proposed innovation with other professional, regulatory, or governmental strategic initiatives is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The assessment of the alignment of the proposed innovation with other professional, regulatory, or governmental strategic initiatives is not accurate or relevant to the proposed innovation.
COMPETENT
The assessment of the alignment of the proposed innovation with other professional, regulatory, or governmental strategic initiatives is accurate and relevant to the proposed innovation.
A5:PURPOSE STATEMENT
NOT EVIDENT
A purpose statement is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The purpose statement is not clear, relevant to the proposal, meaningful, applicable, realistic, or specific. Or it is not clear how the purpose statement supports the success of the proposed innovation.
COMPETENT
The purpose statement is clear, relevant to the proposal, meaningful, applicable, realistic, and specific. It is clear how the purpose statement supports the success of the proposed innovation.
A6:INNOVATION GOAL
NOT EVIDENT
A goal statement is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The goal statement is not based on the SMART-C format or is irrelevant to the proposed innovation.
COMPETENT
The goal statement for the innovation uses the SMART+C format and is relevant to the proposed innovation.
B1:SCHOLARLY SOURCES
NOT EVIDENT
Fewer than 5 sources are provided from scholarly peer-reviewed journals that were published within the past 5 years.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
5 sources from scholarly peer-reviewed journals are accurately identified and were published within the past 5 years, but 1 or more are irrelevant to the proposed innovation.
COMPETENT
5 sources from scholarly peer-reviewed journals are accurately identified and were published within the past 5 years. All of them are relevant to the proposed innovation.
B2:PRESENTATIONS OF FINDINGS
NOT EVIDENT
A Relevant Sources Summary Table is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The Relevant Sources Summary Table is incomplete or does not include a detailed summary of each source from part B1. Or 1 or more of the summaries presented is not related to the proposed innovation.
COMPETENT
The Relevant Sources Summary Table is complete and includes a detailed summary of each source identified in part B1. Each summary is appropriately related to the proposed innovation.
B3:EVIDENCE STRENGTH AND HIERARCHY
NOT EVIDENT
The evidence strength and evidence hierarchy of any of the chosen sources in the evidence critique table is inaccurately identified, using the Strength of Evidence information in the study plan.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
Not applicable.
COMPETENT
The evidence strength and evidence hierarchy of each chosen source in the evidence critique table is accurately identified, using the Strength of Evidence information in the study plan.
B4:SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE
NOT EVIDENT
A synthesis of the findings from the sources identified in part B1 is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The synthesis of the findings from the sources identified in part B1 is not specific to the proposed innovation or is not logically presented. Or it does not accurately identify and synthesize key patterns, trends, or gaps in the literature.
COMPETENT
The synthesis of the findings from the sources in part B1 is specific to the proposed innovation and logically presented. It accurately identifies and synthesizes patterns, trends, and gaps in the literature.
B5:RECOMMENDATIONS
NOT EVIDENT
Developed recommendations for the proposed innovation are not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The recommendations are not fully developed or do not incorporate findings from the literature. Or they are not appropriate to the proposed innovation. Or the recommendations are unclear, not specific, or illogical.
COMPETENT
The developed recommendations incorporate the summary findings from the literature, and are appropriate for the proposed innovation. The recommendations are clear, specific, and logical.
C1:IDEA GENERATION PROCESS
NOT EVIDENT
An explanation of the process used to generate ideas for an innovation is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The explanation is missing information about the process used to generate ideas from the CoP, or the explanation is not relevant to the proposed innovation.
COMPETENT
The explanation is comprehensive and includes specific details about the process used to generate ideas from the CoP. The explanation is relevant to the proposed innovation.
C2:DATA EXAMPLES
NOT EVIDENT
Examples of big and small data within the current healthcare setting are not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The examples of big and small data provided are not practical or relevant to the current healthcare setting. Or key examples of big or small data are missing without reasonable justification.
COMPETENT
The examples of big and small data provided are practical and relevant to the current healthcare setting. Key examples are provided, or their absence is reasonably justified.
C3:BIG DATA SUPPORT
NOT EVIDENT
A discussion of how big data can be used to support the proposed innovation is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The discussion contains inaccuracies or demonstrates a limited understanding of how big data can be used to support the proposed innovation.
COMPETENT
The discussion demonstrates an accurate understanding of how big data can be used to support the proposed innovation.
C4:TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENTS
NOT EVIDENT
A description of technology enhancements required for the proposed innovation is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The described technology enhancements are not specific, appropriate, or feasible for the proposed innovation, or the description lacks details and a plausible justification of why the identified enhancements are required.
COMPETENT
The described technology enhancements are specific, appropriate, and feasible for the proposed innovation. The description includes details about the proposed innovation and a plausible justification for the identified enhancements.
D1:DISRUPTION
NOT EVIDENT
An analysis of disruption from the proposed innovation is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The analysis demonstrates an inaccurate or limited understanding of disruption relevant to the proposed innovation. Or the analysis is missing the potential impact of disruption on individuals, processes, or organizations.
COMPETENT
The analysis demonstrates an accurate and in-depth understanding of disruption relevant to the proposed innovation and clearly identifies its potential impact on individuals, processes, and organizations.
D2:STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE CHALLENGES
NOT EVIDENT
Strategies to mitigate the challenges of disruption is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The developed strategies lack specificity or are not feasible to mitigate the challenges of disruption. Or strategies relevant to individuals, processes, or organizations are missing.
COMPETENT
The developed strategies are specific and feasible to mitigate the challenges of disruption for individuals, processes, and organizations.
D3:LEVERAGE BENEFITS OF DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION
NOT EVIDENT
A discussion of how the proposed innovation can leverage benefits of disruptive innovation for healthcare outcomes is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The discussion does not practically or plausibly explain how the proposed innovation can leverage benefits of disruptive innovation for cost-effective or quality healthcare outcomes. Or the cost-effective, quality healthcare outcomes are not identified or are irrelevant to the proposed innovation.
COMPETENT
The discussion includes a practical and plausible explanation of how the proposed innovation can leverage benefits of disruptive innovation relevant to identified cost-effective, quality healthcare outcomes.
E1:DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION
NOT EVIDENT
A discussion about diffusion of innovation is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The discussion demonstrates a limited or inaccurate understanding of diffusion of innovation. Or the discussion does not appropriately relate relevant information to the proposed innovation implementation plan.
COMPETENT
The discussion demonstrates a comprehensive and accurate understanding of diffusion of innovation and appropriately relates relevant information to the proposed innovation implementation plan.
E2:INNOVATION ACTION PLAN TABLE
NOT EVIDENT
The Innovation Action Plan table is incomplete or not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The Innovation Action Plan table is submitted in a format other than the format provided in the task directions. Or the information presented in the table is not practical, is inaccurate, or is irrelevant to the proposed innovation.
COMPETENT
The Innovation Action Plan is submitted using the template provided in the task directions. The information in the table is practical, accurate, and relevant to the proposed innovation.
E3:FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
NOT EVIDENT
A discussion is not provided or is irrelevant to the planning process.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The discussion considers the financial implications of some but not all stages of the implementation plan for the proposed innovation. Details are limited, irrelevant, or inaccurate, or the discussion does not inform the plan in a meaningful way.
COMPETENT
The discussion includes thorough consideration of the financial implications for all stages of the implementation for the proposed innovation. The discussion is supported by specific, relevant, and accurate details, and it is meaningful to the planning process.
E4:INTERPROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION PLAN
NOT EVIDENT
A communication plan for facilitating the innovation is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The communication plan addresses some but not all of the key logistical components of facilitating the innovation and its usability. The discussion lacks specificity and relevancy to the proposed innovation.
COMPETENT
The communication plan considers all logistical components of facilitating the innovation and its usability including but not limited to who will give and receive communication, what will be communicated, and when and where the message will be communicated. The discussion is specific and relevant to the proposed innovation.
E5:EVALUATION
NOT EVIDENT
A discussion of how the proposed innovation will be evaluated is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The discussion includes a plan for evaluation but lacks specificity or measurability. Or the connection to the purpose statement and innovation goal is not clear.
COMPETENT
The discussion details a specific, measurable, and clear plan for evaluation. The connection to the purpose statement and innovation goal is clear.
F1:PURPOSE AND RATIONALE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not reiterate the purpose and rationale for the proposed innovation.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission reiterates the purpose statement and rationale, but it is unclear. Or the purpose statement or rationale are inaccurate or irrelevant to the proposed innovation.
COMPETENT
The submission reiterates the purpose statement and rationale, and both are clear, accurate, and relevant to the proposed innovation.
F2:REFLECTION
NOT EVIDENT
A reflection on the candidate’s experiences related to innovation is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The reflection is limited in scope and insight. There are few or insignificant references to personal experience with the process of innovation.
COMPETENT
The reflection is insightful as it relates to the key tenets of the process of innovation. Significant personal experiences with the process of innovation are referenced.
F3:STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES
NOT EVIDENT
A discussion of strengths and challenges is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The discussion is missing specific examples of strengths or challenges, or the identified strengths and challenges are not relevant to the process used for developing the proposed innovation plan.
COMPETENT
The discussion includes specific and relevant examples of strengths and challenges relating to the process of developing the proposed innovation plan.
F4:FUTURE INITIATIVES
NOT EVIDENT
A discussion of how lessons learned will be applied to future initiatives is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The discussion of how lessons learned from this experience can be applied to future initiatives is not clear, includes limited insights, or is not logical.
COMPETENT
The discussion of how lessons learned from this experience can be applied to future initiatives is clear, insightful, and logical.
G:APA SOURCES
NOT EVIDENT
The submission is not in APA style.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission does not demonstrate a consistent application of APA style.
COMPETENT
The submission demonstrates a consistent application of APA style.
I:PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION
NOT EVIDENT
Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.
COMPETENT
Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding.