Assignment 1: Issues in Health Care Reform (Interview) NURS 8100
Assignment 1: Issues in Health Care Reform (Interview) NURS 8100
Assignment 1: Issues in Health Care
Reform (Interview)
Continue to work on this Assignment, assigned in Week 2 and due in Week 9.
By Day 7 of Week 9
Submit this Assignment.
Assignment 2: Health Policy Proposal
Analysis (Policy Brief)
Continue to work on this Assignment, assigned in Week 3 and due in Week 7. Consider
the potential economic benefits of the recommendation you have selected and how the
recommendation may contribute to controlling health care costs. Include this information
in your policy brief.
By Day 7 of Week 7
Submit this Assignment.
Assignment 3: Policy Analysis Paper
[Major Assessment 2]
Continue to work on this Assignment, assigned in Week 4 and due in Week 11. Analyze
the ethical and legal context of your selected health care policy. This information should
be included in Part 2 of your analysis paper.
By Day 7 of Week 11
Submit this Assignment.
Week in Review
This week, you analyzed a health care policy in the light of tensions between individual
rights and the collective good. You also evaluated the ethical and legal considerations
of a health care policy.
Next week, you will examine various professional organizations and evaluate their role
in nursing, education, and health care policy.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Name: NURS_8100_Week6_Discussion_Rubric
Exit
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO
DISCUSSION QUESTION
Discussion post minimum
requirements:
8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses
exceed the requirements of the
Discussion instructions. They:
Respond to the question being
asked or the prompt provided; – Go
7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses
meet the requirements of the
Discussion instructions. They: –
Respond to the question being
asked or the prompt provided; -Are
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses
are minimally responsive to the
requirements of the Discussion
instructions. They: – do not clearly
address the objectives of the
0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses
are unresponsive to the
requirements of the Discussion
instructions. They: – do not clearly
address the objectives of the
*The original posting must be
completed by Wednesday, Day 3,
at 11:59pm MST. Two response
postings to two different peer
original posts, on two different
days, are required by Saturday,
Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty
member inquiries require
responses, which are not
included in the minimum number
of posts. Your Discussion Board
postings should be written in
standard edited English and
follow APA style for format and
grammar as closely as possible
given the constraints of the online
platform. Be sure to support the
postings with specific citations
from this week's Learning
Resources as well as resources
available through the Walden
University online databases. Refer
to the Essential Guide to APA
Style for Walden Students to
ensure your in-text citations and
reference list are correct.
beyond what is required in some
meaningful way (e.g., the post
contributes a new dimension,
unearths something unanticipated);
-Are substantive, reflective, with
critical analysis and synthesis
representative of knowledge gained
from the course readings and
current credible evidence. –
Demonstrate significant ability to
generalize and extend thinking and
evaluate theories or concepts within
the topic or context of the
discussion. -Demonstrate that the
student has read, viewed, and
considered the Learning –
Resources as well as additional
resources and has read, viewed, or
considered a sampling of
colleagues' postings; -Exceed the
minimum requirements for
discussion posts*.
substantive, reflective, with critical
analysis and synthesis
representative of knowledge gained
from the course readings and
current credible evidence.re –
Demonstrate ability to generalize
and extend thinking and evaluate
theories or concepts within the topic
or context of the discussion. –
Demonstrate that the student has
read, viewed, and considered the
Learning Resources and has read,
viewed, or considered a sampling of
colleagues' postings -Meet the
minimum requirements for
discussion posts*.
discussion or the question or
prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in
depth, reflection, analysis, or
synthesis but rely more on
anecdotal than scholarly evidence;
and/or -Do not adequately
demonstrate that the student has
read, viewed, and considered the
Learning -Resources and/or a
sampling of colleagues' postings;
and/or has posted by the due date
at least in part. – Lack ability to
generalize and extend thinking and
evaluate theories or concepts within
the topic or context of the
discussion. -Do not meet the
minimum requirements for
discussion posts*.
discussion or the question or
prompt; and/or – Lack in substance,
reflection, analysis, or synthesis but
rely more on anecdotal than
scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to
generalize and extend thinking and
evaluate theories or concepts within
the topic or context of the
discussion. -Do not demonstrate
that the student has read, viewed,
and considered the Learning
Resources and/or a sampling of
colleagues’ postings; and/or does
not meet the minimum requirements
for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses:
-demonstrate in-depth
understanding and application of
concepts and issues presented in
the course (e.g., insightful
interpretations including analysis,
synthesis and/or evaluation of topic;
– are well supported by pertinent
research/evidence from a variety of
and multiple peer- reviewed books
and journals, where appropriate; –
Demonstrate significant mastery
and thoughtful/accurate application
of content, applicable skills or
strategies presented in the course.
7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses:
-demonstrate understanding and
application of the concepts and
issues presented in the course,
presented with some understanding
and application of concepts and
issues presented in the course
(e.g., insightful interpretations
including analysis, synthesis and/or
evaluation of topic; -are supported
by research/evidence from peer-
reviewed books and journals, where
appropriate; and · demonstrate
some mastery and application of
content, applicable skills, or
strategies presented in the course.
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses:
– demonstrate minimal
understanding of concepts and
issues presented in the course, and,
although generally accurate, display
some omissions and/or errors; –lack
support by research/evidence
and/or the research/evidence is
inappropriate or marginal in quality;
and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or
evaluation of topic – demonstrate
minimal content, skills or strategies
presented in the course. ——-
Contain numerous errors when
using the skills or strategies
presented in the course
0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses
demonstrate: -A lack of
understanding of the concepts and
issues presented in the course;
and/or are inaccurate, contain many
omissions and/or errors; and/or are
not supported by
research/evidence; and/or lack of
analysis, synthesis or evaluation of
topic -Many critical errors when
discussing content, applicable skills
or strategies presented in the
course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE
DISCUSSION
8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses
significantly contribute to the quality
of the discussion/interaction and
thinking and learning by: -providing
Rich and relevant examples;
discerning and thought-provoking
ideas; and stimulating thoughts and
probes; – -demonstrating original
thinking, new perspectives, and
extensive synthesis of ideas
supported by the literature.
7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses
contribute to the quality of the
discussion/interaction and thinking
and learning by -providing relevant
examples; thought-provoking ideas
– Demonstrating synthesis of ideas
supported by the literature
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses
minimally contribute to the quality of
discussion/interaction and thinking
and learning by: – providing few
and/or irrelevant examples; and/or –
providing few if any thought-
provoking ideas; and/or -.
Information that is restated from the
literature with no/little demonstration
of critical thinking or synthesis of
ideas.
0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses
do not contribute to the quality of
interaction/discussion and thinking
and learning as they do not: –
Provide examples (or examples are
irrelevant); and/or -Include
interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or
– Demonstrate of critical thinking or
synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses
exceed doctoral -level writing
expectations. They: · Use grammar
and syntax that is clear, concise,
and appropriate to doctoral level
writing; · Make few if any errors in
spelling, grammar, and syntax; ·
Use original language and refrain
from directly quoting original source
materials; -provide correct APA ·
Are positive, courteous, and
respectful when offering
suggestions, constructive feedback,
or opposing viewpoints.
5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses
meet doctoral -level writing
expectations. They: ·Use grammar
and syntax that is clear and
appropriate to doctoral level writing;
; · Make a few errors in spelling,
grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase
but refrain from directly quoting
original source materials; Provide
correct APA format · Are courteous
and respectful when offering
suggestions, constructive feedback,
or opposing viewpoints;.
4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)
Discussion postings and responses
are minimally below doctoral-level
writing expectations. They: · Make
more than occasional errors in
spelling, grammar, and syntax; ·
Directly quote from original source
materials and/or paraphrase rather
than use original language; lack
correct APA format; and/or · Are
less than courteous and respectful
when offering suggestions,
feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
0 (0%) – 3 (10%)
Discussion postings and responses
are well below doctoral -level writing
expectations. They: · Use grammar
and syntax that is that is unclear ·
Make many errors in spelling,
grammar, and syntax; and –use
incorrect APA format · Are
discourteous and disrespectful
when offering suggestions,
feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
Total Points: 30
Name: NURS_8100_Week6_Discussion_Rubric
ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL NURSING ESSAY ASSIGNMENT ON: Assignment 1: Issues in Health Care Reform (Interview) NURS 8100
Learning Resources
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the
Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.
Required Readings
Bodenheimer, T., & Grumbach, K. (2016). Understanding health policy: A clinical
approach (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Medical.
Chapter 13, “Medical Ethics and Rationing of Health Care”
This chapter discusses the four principles of medical ethics—beneficence,
malfeasance, autonomy, and justice, and views current health care conditions
through these lenses. Distributive justice, allocation of limited health care
resources, rationing, and the ethics of health care financing are also examined.
Bae, S., & Brewer, C. (2010). Mandatory overtime regulations and nurse
overtime. Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice, 11(2), 99–107.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
The authors examine the effect of government regulations on health care issues by
studying nurse overtime. They discovered that states with mandatory overtime
regulations had higher total RN work hours.
Blum, J. D., & Talib, N. (2006). Balancing individual rights versus collective good in
public health enforcement. Medicine & Law, 25(2), 273–281.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
This article examines the balance of public good and individual liberty through the
examples of policies regarding communicable disease and childhood immunization. The
impact of the U.S. Supreme Court Case, Jacobson v. Massachusettson health care
policy is discussed.
Pauly, B. (2008). Harm reduction through a social justice lens. International Journal of
Drug Policy, 19(1), 4–10.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
The author discusses the ethical issue of marginalized groups, such as the homeless,
and their barriers to health care. The philosophy of harm reduction and various social
justice theories are examined as possible guides to a policy initiative.
Ruger, J. P. (2008). Ethics in American health 2: An ethical framework for health system
reform. American Journal of Public Health, 98(1), 1756–1763.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Wieck, K. L., Oehler, T., Green, A., & Jordan, C. (2004). Safe nurse staffing: A win-win
collaboration model for influencing health policy. Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice,
5(3), 160–166.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Optional Resources
Fowler, M. (2008). Guide to the code of ethics for nurses: Interpretation and application.
M. D. M. Fowler (Ed.). Silver Spring, MD: The American Nurses Association, Inc.
O'Connor, J. C., MacNeil, A., Chriqui, J. F., Tynan, M., Bates, H., & Eidson, S. K.
(2008). Preemption of local smoke-free air ordinances: The implications of judicial
opinions for meeting national health objectives. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics,
36(2), 403–412.
Rogers, E. M., & Peterson, J. C. (2008). Diffusion of clean indoor air ordinances in the
southwestern United States. Health Education & Behavior, 35(5), 683–697.
Trentham, M. (2009). Patient abandonment—What is it really? ASBN Update, 13(1).