Discussion: Strategies for Effective Critical ThinkingDiscussion: Strategies for Effective Critical Thinking

Discussion: Strategies for Effective Critical Thinking Photo Credit: Getty Images Teachers of critical thinking methods often advocate general “tools of the trade” to promote effective practices. Among these tools are reading, analysis, and debate. In effect, these tools represent foundational nursing practices of interprofessional collaboration and evidence-based practice. This offers nurse educators yet another reason to advance such practices. Doing so not only promotes best practices of specialty nursing but prepares nurses to think critically as they solve problems. For this Discussion, you will examine strategies that promote effective critical thinking in clinical practice. To prepare: Review the Walton article, “Are You in Congestive Nursing Failure? Legal Issues, Critical Thinking, and the Impact on Practice,” found in this week’s Learning Resources. As you review, consider the strategies the author presents that promote critical thinking, including: knowledge work self-talk schema search prototype identification hypothesizing if-then thinking comparative analysis juxtaposing reflexive comparison reframing reflection check From the list, select two strategies you most commonly use to employ effective critical thinking in the clinical practice arena.  By Day 3 Post and describe the two strategies you selected that you commonly use to employ effective critical thinking in the clinical practice area or your practicum experience. Provide an example from your practicum experience of each strategy and your analysis of this strategy. Explain how you know that the strategy is successful. Be specific. Use the Learning Resources and/or the best available evidence from current literature to support your explanation. By Day 6 Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days with alternative suggestions for critical thinking strategies applicable to the examples they posted. Use the Learning Resources and/or the best available evidence from current literature to support your explanation. Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit! Submission and Grading Information Learning Resources Required Readings (click to expand/reduce) Canada, A. N. (2016). Probing the relationship between evidence-based practice implementation models and critical thinking in applied nursing practice. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 47(4), 161–168. Walton, B. (2017). Are you in congestive nursing failure? Legal issues, critical thinking, and the impact on practice. Ohio Nurse’s Review, 92(4), 16–23. Zuriguel-Perez, E., Falco-Pegueroles, A., Roldan-Merino, J., Agustino-Rodriguez, S., del Carmen Gomez-Martin, M., & Teresa Lluch-Canut, M. (2017). Development and psychometric properties of the nursing critical thinking in clinical practice questionnaire. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(4), 257–264. Safety and Quality of Care Resources Lyle-Edrosolo, G ., & Waxman, K. T. (2016). Aligning healthcare safety and quality competencies: Quality and safety education for nurses (QSEN), The Joint Commission, and American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) magnet® standards crosswalk. Nurse Leader, 14(1), 70–75. The Joint Commission. (2020). National patient safety goals. https://www.jointcommission.org/en/standards/national-patient-safety-goals/  QSEN Institute. (2020). Resources. https://qsen.org/faculty-resources/ Dongjuan, X., Kane, R., & Arling, G. (2019). Relationship between nursing home quality indicators and potentially preventable hospitalisation. BMJ Quality & Safety, 28(7), 524–533.  Evangelou, E., Lambrinou, E., Kouta, C., & Middleton, N. (2018). Identifying validated nursing quality indicators for the intensive care unit: An integrative review. CONNECT: The World of Critical Care Nursing, 12(2), 28–39. Pinto, S., Regina, V. & Ferreira, M., & Cruz, S. (2017). Indicators for the assessment of the quality of nursing care: A descriptive-exploratory study. Online Brazilian Journal of Nursing,16(2), 140–151. Ju, Q., Huang, L., Zhao, X., Xing, M., Shao, L., Zhang, M., Shao, R., Ju, Q.-Y., Huang, L.-H., Zhao, X.-H., Xing, M.-Y., Shao, L.-W., Zhang, M.-Y., & Shao, R.-Y. (2018). Development of evidence‐based nursing‐sensitive quality indicators for emergency nursing: A Delphi study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(15–16), 3008–3019. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Quality improvement and monitoring at your fingertips. https://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov (Previously read in Week 4) Name: NURS_6341_Week10_Discussion_Rubric Grid View List View   Excellent Good Fair Poor Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the Discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the Discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s) adequately. Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by Day 3. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post main post by Day 3. First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to specialty practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to specialty practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to specilaty practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to specialty practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_6341_Week10_Discussion_Rubric

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Discussion: Strategies for Effective Critical ThinkingDiscussion: Strategies for Effective Critical Thinking
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay
Place Order
Grab A 14% Discount on This Paper
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)