Assignment: Threaded Case Study Part 4: Safety and Quality of Care

Assignment: Threaded Case Study Part 4: Safety and Quality of Care Photo Credit: Getty Images/Hero Images For this fourth and final part of your Threaded Case Study Assignment, you will consider the safety and quality of care for the case study you chose from your practicum experience. Once you complete and finalize your Part 4, you will incorporate the feedback you received from your instructor on Parts 1, 2, and 3 and prepare your Assignment for final submission. Your final submission of this Assignment will include Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. To prepare: Review the Safety and Quality of Care Learning Resources for this week and consider how these resources might impact your Assignment. Part 4 Assignment: Identify and describe two potential adverse outcomes that could happen with your selected patient. Based on the potential adverse outcomes, explain the assessments and data you would use to monitor. Use the Learning Resources and/or the best available evidence from current literature to support your explanation. Explain two strategies to prevent each potential adverse outcome (safety or quality concerns); include interprofessional collaboration strategies when appropriate. Use the Learning Resources and/or the best available evidence from current literature to support your explanation. Identify and describe at least one evidence-based practice strategy or clinical practice guideline that can be used to improve quality and safety outcomes for the patient. Use the Learning Resources and/or the best available evidence from current literature to support your evidence-based strategy or clinical practice guideline. By Day 7 Submit Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of your Threaded Case Study Assignment . Submission and Grading Information To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following: Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “Part4Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name. Click the Part 4 Case Study Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment. Click the Part 4 Case Study Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area. Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “Part4Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open. If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database. Click on the Submit button to complete your submission. Grading Criteria To access your rubric: Week 10 Part 4 Case Study Assignment Rubric  Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity To check your Assignment draft for authenticity: Submit your Week 10 Part 4 Case Study Assignment draft and review the originality report. Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 To participate in this Assignment: Week 10 Part 4 Case Study Assignment Name: NURS_6341_Week10_Assignment_Part_4_Rubric Grid View List View   Excellent Good Fair Poor Identify and describe two potential adverse outcomes that could happen with your selected patient. Based on the potential adverse outcomes, explain the assessments and data you would use to monitor. Use the Learning Resources and/or the best available evidence from current literature to support your explanation. 36 (36%) – 40 (40%) The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly identifies and describes two or more potential adverse outcomes that could happen with the selected patient. The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly explains the assessments and data that could be used to monitor. It is supported by more than two current, scholarly reference from the literature. 32 (32%) – 35 (35%) The response clearly identifies and describes two potential adverse outcomes that could happen with the selected patient. The response clearly explains the assessments and data that could be used to monitor. It is supported by at least two current, scholarly reference from the literature. 28 (28%) – 34 (34%) The response vaguely identifies and/or vaguely describes 1–2 potential adverse outcomes that could happen with the selected patient, or the response vaguely explains the assessments and data that could be used to monitor. It is not supported by any current, scholarly references from the literature. 0 (0%) – 27 (27%) The response inaccurately identifies and/or describes 1–2 potential adverse outcomes that could happen with the selected patient, or the response inaccurately explains the assessments and data that could be used to monitor, or this element of the response is missing. It is not supported by any current, scholarly references from the literature. Explain two strategies to prevent each potential adverse outcome (safety or quality concerns); include interprofessional collaboration strategies, when appropriate. Identify and describe at least one evidence-based practice strategy or clinical practice guideline that can be used to improve quality and safety outcomes for the patient. Use the Learning Resources and/or the best available evidence from current literature to support your explanations. 36 (36%) – 40 (40%) The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly explains two strategies to prevent each potential adverse outcome (safety or quality concerns), including interprofessional collaboration strategies, when appropriate. The response clearly identifies and thoroughly describes at least one evidence-based practice strategy or clinical practice guideline that can be used to improve quality and safety outcomes for the patient. It is supported by more than two current, scholarly reference from the literature. 32 (32%) – 35 (35%) The response clearly explains two strategies to prevent each potential adverse outcome (safety or quality concerns), including interprofessional collaboration strategies, when appropriate. The response identifies and describes at least one evidence-based practice strategy or clinical practice guideline that can be used to improve quality and safety outcomes for the patient. It is supported by at least two current, scholarly reference from the literature. 28 (28%) – 34 (34%) The response vaguely explains 1–2 strategies to prevent each potential adverse outcome (safety or quality concerns), including interprofessional collaboration strategies, when appropriate. The response identifies and vaguely describes one evidence-based practice strategy or clinical practice guideline that can be used to improve quality and safety outcomes for the patient. It is not supported by any current, scholarly references from the literature. 0 (0%) – 27 (27%) The response vaguely or inaccurately explains one or no strategies to prevent each potential adverse outcome (safety or quality concerns), including interprofessional collaboration strategies, when appropriate. The response inaccurately identifies and/or inaccurately describes one or no evidence-based practice strategy or clinical practice guideline that can be used to improve quality and safety outcomes for the patient. It is not supported by any current, scholarly references from the literature. Written Expression and Formatting Paragraph/Sentence Structure: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Paragraphs/sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity. 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. Written Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1–2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (3–4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding Written Expression and Formatting – The assignment contains parenthetical/in-text citations, and at least three evidence-based references are listed. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Contains parenthetical/in-text citations and at least three evidence-based references are listed 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains parenthetical/in-text citations and at least two evidence-based references are listed 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains parenthetical/in-text citations and at least one evidence-based reference is listed 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains one or no parenthetical/in-text citations and no evidence-based references listed Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_6341_Week10_Assignment_Part_4_Rubric 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)

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Assignment: Threaded Case Study Part 4: Safety and Quality of Care
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)