Advocate Through Policy Making
Purpose
This assignment aims to write a briefing that addresses a policy that affects the health care industry; it is aimed at government policymakers and other stakeholders interested in formulating policies.
Course Outcomes
This assignment documents students’ ability to meet the following course outcomes.
• Critically analyze health policy proposals, policies, and related issues from consumers, nursing, other health professions, and other stakeholders in policy and public forums.
• Employ leadership in developing and implementing institutional, local, state, federal, and/or international health policy.
• Recommend policymakers through active participation on committees, boards, or task forces at the institutional, local, state, regional, national, and/or international levels to improve health care delivery and outcomes.
• Educate others, including policymakers at all levels, regarding nursing, health policy, and patient care outcomes.
• Incorporate for the nursing profession within the policy and healthcare communities.
• Integrate interprofessional collaboration and the DNP indirect care role across diverse healthcare settings.
• Utilize DNP leadership strategies for advancing healthcare policy in selected healthcare systems change
End of Program Student Learning Outcomes
· I-Integrate Scientific Underpinnings into Practice
· II-Develop Organizational and Systems Leadership for Quality Improvement and Systems Thinking
· III-Apply Clinical Scholarship and Analytical Methods for Evidence-Based Practice
· IV-Use Information Systems/Technology and Patient Care Technology for the Improvement and Transformation of Health Care
· V-Influence Health Care Policy for Advocacy in Health Care
· VI-Employ Interprofessional Collaboration for Improving Patient and Population Health Outcomes
· VIII-Demonstrate advanced levels of clinical judgment, systems thinking, and accountability in designing, delivering, and evaluating evidence-based care to improve patient outcomes
· Use Information Systems/Technology and Patient Care Technology for the Improvement and Transformation of Health Care
Leadership-Related Role Specific Professional Competencies
· Effective Communication and Relationship Building
· Knowledge of the Healthcare Environment
· Leadership
· Professionalism
· Business Skills
Due Date: Submit to the Moodle by Saturday of the end Week 3 at 11:59 p.m. ET.
Points: This assignment is worth a total of 100 points.
Requirements
· To complete this assignment, please watch the following video: https://youtu.be/DaskoGsCgyE.
· Please use your AONL Website membership https://www.aonl.org access to review some of the current policy issues and topics of advocacy in healthcare; you can also access the American Nurse Association website at the https://www.nursingworld.org to read on some more policy issues and topics of advocacy in healthcare.
· You will need access to the Miami Regional University virtual library database. Following databases: CINAHL Complete Database, MEDLINE Complete Database, LIRN, and so forth. Our Librarian is available to help on campus from Monday to Friday, 7:30 am to 9:00 pm & Saturday, 8:00 am to 3:00 pm. Feel free to use the APA template provided for this assignment in Moodle week #3. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to your professor or DNP mentor or post your question in the Q/A forum on Moodle. We are here to help.
· This assignment is worth 100 points and will be graded on the required components as summarized in the directions and grading criteria/rubric. This assignment will be graded on the quality of information, use of citations, use of Standard English grammar, sentence structure, and overall organization based on the required components as summarized in the directions and grading criteria and rubric.
· APA format and effective writing are required for the paper. Use your APA manual or Purdue Owl to check and correct your formatting. Use Grammarly, Tutor Source, and the grammar and spelling check on your Word Processor and criteria for effective writing to assure that your paper has been well written.
· Create your manuscript using the version of Microsoft Word. You can tell that the document is saved as an MS Word document because it will end in “.docx.”
· Follow the directions and grading criteria closely. Any questions about this paper may be posted under the Q & A Forum.
· The length of the project report is to be no fewer than four and no greater than six pages, excluding the title page and reference pages.
· This paper will be submitted through Turnitin. A Turnitin similarity score of 20% or less is expected.
· A minimum of 6 current scholarly references that are 5 years old or less.
· The textbook required for this course may be used as a reference for this assignment but does not count towards the required minimum number of scholarly references.
Directions and Grading Criteria
| Category | Points | % | Description |
| Executive Summary | 10 | 10 | Brief introduction that states the purpose (thesis statement) and major points of the report. Issue clearly stated. Brief paragraph for each main point. The executive summary is clearly present. Executive summary is on a page by itself. |
| Introduction/Background | 15 | 15 | Background information on the topic with statistical data. Issue is clearly stated. Include past and or current bills. Thesis statement and discussion points are clearly present. |
| Approaches | 15 | 15 | Approaches from the policy brief are clearly present; including steps needed to resolve the issue. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. |
| Results | 15 | 15 | Results from the policy brief are clearly present. Expected results from the approaches taken. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. |
| Implication | 15 | 15 | As a result of the approaches, the impacted it will have on healthcare and or nursing. Implication of the policy are present. Discussion is convincing, insightful, and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. |
| Recommendations | 10 | 10 | What action(s) are recommendation to the legislator. Recommendations of the policy are present. Discussion is convincing, insightful, and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. |
| Conclusion | 10 | 10 | Thesis statement rephrased; main points summarized. Recommendation of what the reader should “do” with the information was included. |
| APA format, clarity of writing,
& Use of a minimum of six current scholarly references. |
10 | 10 | All information taken from another source (even if summarized) appropriately cited in the report (including citation of interview) and listed in references using APA (7th ed.) format
1. Document setup 2. Title and reference pages 3. Citations in the text and references
The student uses a minimum of six scholarly articles for the assignment Use of standard English grammar and sentence structure; no spelling errors or typographical errors; organized around the required components using appropriate headers. |
| Email / Mail Legislator Policy Brief | Required | Required | Email or mail your policy brief to your legislator. Place a copy of the letter or email under an appendix (after the reference) |
| Total: | 100 | 100 | A quality report will meet or exceed all of the above requirements. |
Doctor of Nursing Program
Policy Brief Assignment
DNP8100 Structure and Processes in
Health Care Organizations and Health Care Policy
DNP8100 Structure and Processes in
Health Care Organizations and Health Care Policy
| Structure and Processes in Health Care Organizations and Health Care Policy
DNP8100 – Week #3 Contributors from the DNP team: Dr. Coke, Dr. Anny Dionne, Dr. Karen Perez, Dr. Amarilys Gonzalez, Dr. Itzel Vega Crespo, Dr. Angel Garcia, Dr. David Trabanco.
|
2 |
Grading Rubric
| Assignment Criteria | Meets Criteria | Mostly Meets Criteria | Partially Meets Criteria | Does Not Meet Criteria |
| Executive Summary
(10 points) |
Well-developed and thorough introduction of the assignment and purpose. Issues and focal points sufficiently present. Reader provider with clear understanding of purpose for assignment.
10 points |
Introduction needs additional clarity although general concepts can be grasped. Issues and focal points generally present.
6 points |
Introduction provides minimal clarity. General understanding of assignment and purpose. Issues and focal points a poorly organized.
4 points |
Little or very general introduction of the assignment and purpose. Introduction not well developed.
0 point |
| Introduction
(15 points) |
Background information on the topic with substantial statistical data. Issue is clearly stated. Includes past and or current bills. Thesis statement and discussion points are clearly present.
15 points |
Background information on the topic with some statistical data. Issue is clearly stated. Includes past and or current bills. Thesis statement and discussion points are generally presented.
10 points |
Little background information on the topic with minimal statistical data. Issue is not clearly stated. Does not include past and or current bills. Thesis statement and discussion points are poorly presented.
5 points |
No background information on the topic or statistical data. Issue is not clearly stated. Does not include past and or current bills. Very poor or no thesis statement and discussion points provided.
0 point |
| Approaches
15 points |
Approaches from the policy brief are clearly present; including steps needed to resolve the issue. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
15 points |
Approaches from the policy brief are present; steps needed to resolve the issue could use further development. Discussion is convincing but does not define specific elements. Discussion is insightful. Information presented is from mostly current scholarly sources.
10 points |
Approaches from the policy brief are unclear; disorganized steps needed to resolve the issue. Discussion lacks convincing points and does not define specific elements. Discussion lacks insight and understanding of topic. Information presented is from mostly outdated scholarly sources.
5 points |
Approaches from the policy brief are unclear; missing steps needed to resolve the issue. Discussion lacks focus and does not define specific elements. Discussion lacks insight and understanding of topic. Information presented is from mostly outdated scholarly sources or no scholarly sources at all.
0 point |
| Results
(15 points) |
Results from the policy brief are clearly present. Expected results from the approaches taken. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
15 points |
Results from the policy brief are clearly present for the most part. Some expected results from the approaches taken. Discussion is convincing but defines general elements. Discussion shows some insight and forward-thinking. Information presented is from mostly current scholarly sources.
10 points |
Results from the policy brief are unclear. Minimal expected results from the approaches taken. Discussion lacks convincing content and insight. Information presented is from mostly outdated sources.
5 points |
Results from the policy brief are unclear. No expected results from the approaches taken. Discussion lacks convincing content and insight. Information presented is from outdated sources.
0 point |
| Implications
(15 points) |
Implications of the policy are clearly presented and follow as a result of the approach. Discussion is convincing, insightful, and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
15 points |
Implications of the policy are generally presented but follow as a result of the approach. Some convincing discussion and insight. Information presented is from mostly current scholarly sources.
10 points |
Implications of the policy are poorly presented and some deviation from the approach. Very little convincing. Information presented is from very few current scholarly sources.
5 points |
Implications of the policy are poorly presented and deviate from the approach. Unconvincing discussion with no show of insight. Information presented uses no current scholarly sources.
0 point |
| Recommendations
(10 points) |
Recommendations of the policy are present. Discussion is convincing, insightful, and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources.
10 points |
Recommendations of the policy could use development. Discussion is convincing and insightful but lacks forward-thinking. Information presented is from mostly current scholarly sources.
6 points |
Recommendations of the policy are present. Discussion is unfocused, presents general knowledge and insightful, and forward-thinking. Information presented is from outdated scholarly sources.
4 points |
Recommendations of the policy are absent. Discussion is unfounded and unfocused. Information presented is scarce/ from outdated sources.
0 point |
| Conclusion
(10 points) |
Thesis statement rephrased; main points summarized. Recommendation of what the reader should “do” with the information was included.
10 points |
Thesis statement rewritten verbatim; main points summarized loosely.
Recommendation of what reader should do with the information was included.
6 points |
Thesis statement and main points rewritten verbatim with no additional insight.
Unclear recommendation of what reader should do with the information.
4 points |
Thesis statement unmentioned; main points are not clear.
No recommendation of what the reader should “do” with the information was included.
0 point |
| APA format, Clarity of writing & Use of a minimum of six current scholarly references.
(10 points) |
APA format is correct with no more than 1–2 minor errors.
Use of a minimum of six current scholarly references. Excellent use of standard English showing original thought; no spelling or grammar errors; well organized with proper flow of meaning. 10 points |
Three to five errors in APA format and/or 1–2 citations missing.
Use of a minimum of three to five current scholarly references. Some evidence of own expression and competent use of language; no more than three spelling or grammar errors; well organized thoughts and concepts.
6 points |
APA formatting contains multiple errors and/or 3 or more citations missing.
Use of one to three scholarly references; or use of outdated scholarly references. Language needs development; one to four spelling and/or grammar errors; poorly organized thoughts and concepts.
4 points |
APA formatting contains multiple errors and/or several citations missing.
Use none to two scholarly references: or use of outdated scholarly references. Language needs development; four or more spelling and/or grammar errors; poorly organized thoughts and concepts
0 point |
| Email / Mail Legislator Policy Brief
Email or mail your policy brief to your legislator. Place a copy of the letter or email under an appendix (after the reference) |
Required | Required | Required | Required |
| Total Points Possible = __100 points |