NGM2 — NGM2 TASK 1: PRACTICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROPOSAL
TASK OVERVIEW SUBMISSIONS EVALUATION REPORT
COMPETENCIES
738.4.1 : Compare Healthcare Delivery Models
The learner compares healthcare delivery models to facilitate value-based care, shared decision making, and equitable patient-centered care.
738.4.2 : Describe Continuous Improvement Strategies
The learner describes evidence-based continuous improvement strategies that improve patient care.
738.4.3 : Compare Safety Standards
The learner compares current practice with patient safety standards to promote optimal patient outcomes.
738.4.4 : Examine Systems Redesign
The learner examines systems design in a high-reliability organization.
INTRODUCTION
Patient safety is an integral part of value-based healthcare. Ensuring patient safety can lead to faster recovery times, which, in turn, leads to lower costs of care. When combined, these factors result in improved patient satisfaction. Ensuring patient safety requires professional nurses to be proactive in identifying potential safety concerns and proposing evidence-based solutions to mitigate those concerns across the healthcare continuum.
Your goal for this task is to clearly and concisely propose a recommendation that addresses an identified systems-level safety issue that affects patients within a healthcare setting, such as your practice or a colleague’s practice, using convincing evidence to promote the necessity for change.
ORDER A CUSTOM-WRITTEN WGU ASSIGNMENT AT ONLY $12 PER PAGE
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 similarity 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.
Tasks may not be submitted as cloud links, such as links to Google Docs, Google Slides, OneDrive, etc., unless specified in the task requirements. All other submissions must be file types that are uploaded and submitted as attachments (e.g., .docx, .pdf, .ppt).
A. Discuss a systems-level safety concern in a healthcare setting by applying the situation, background, assessment, recommendation (SBAR) format by doing the following:
1. Describe a healthcare-related situation (S) prompting a systems-level patient safety concern that has the potential to impact multiple patients.
2. Analyze background (B) information about the concern by doing the following:
a. Describe the data that support or would support the need for change.
b. Explain how one or more national patient safety standards apply to this situation. 3. Assess (A) the impact of the safety concern on the patient(s), staff, and the organization as situated in the identified healthcare setting.
a. Explain how the safety concern affects value for the patient(s) and the healthcare setting.
4. Recommend (R) an evidence-based practice change that addresses the safety concern. a. Discuss how this recommendation aligns with the principles of a high-reliability
organization.
b. Describe two potential barriers to the recommended practice change.
c. Identify two potential interventions to minimize the barriers from part A4b to the recommended practice change.
d. Discuss the significance of shared decision-making among the healthcare setting’s relevant stakeholders in implementing this recommendation.
e. Describe an outcome measure that could be used to evaluate the results of the
recommendation.
f. Describe the care delivery model currently being used in the healthcare setting.
i. Explain how the current care delivery model in the healthcare setting identified in part A4f would be impacted by the recommended change in part A4.
https://tasks.wgu.edu/student/011486704/course/27720012/task/3612/overview 6/3/24, 11:04 AM Page 2 of 8
B. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
C. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.
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, csv, 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:SAFETY CONCERN
describe a healthcare-relat ed situation.
The submission describes a healthcare-related situa
tion, but the situation would not be regarded as a plausi ble systems-level patient
safety concern or does not
have the potential to impact multiple patients given cur
rent healthcare practices. COMPETENT The submission describes a healthcare-related situation that could be regarded as a plausible systems-level pa tient safety concern that has the potential to impact multi ple patients given current
healthcare practices.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not describe any data.
APPROACHING COMPE TENCE
The submission describes data, but the description is general in nature, or the de scribed data do not demon strate the need for change
COMPETENT
The submission describes specific data that demon strate the need for change to address the situation in part A1.
https://tasks.wgu.edu/student/011486704/course/27720012/task/3612/overview 6/3/24, 11:04 AM Page 3 of 8
A2B:NATIONAL SAFETY STANDARD(S)
to address the situation in part A1.
NOT EVIDENT
An explanation referencing at least 1 national patient safety standard is not pro vided.
A3:IMPACT
APPROACHING COMPE
TENCE
The explanation references at least 1 national patient
safety standard but does
not correctly address how
each referenced standard
applies to the situation de
scribed in part A1.
COMPETENT The explanation references at least 1 national patient safety standard and correct ly addresses how each refer enced standard applies to the situation described in
part A1.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not discuss the impact of the safety concern from part A1.
APPROACHING COMPE TENCE
The submission does not logically discuss the impact of the safety concern de scribed in part A1 as it specifically relates to the patient(s), staff, or health care setting.
COMPETENT
The submission logically dis cusses the impact of the
safety concern described in part A1 as it specifically re lates to the patient(s), staff, and healthcare setting.
A3A:VALUE NOT EVIDENT
An explanation of how the safety concern from part A1 affects value for the pa tient(s) and the healthcare setting is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPE TENCE
The submission explains
how the safety concern
from part A1 affects value
for the patient(s) and the
healthcare setting, but the
explanation is illogical or
contains inaccuracies.
COMPETENT
The submission logically and accurately explains how the safety concern from part A1
affects value for the pa tient(s) and the healthcare setting.
https://tasks.wgu.edu/student/011486704/course/27720012/task/3612/overview 6/3/24, 11:04 AM Page 4 of 8
A4:EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE CHANGE
NOT EVIDENT The submission does not
provide a recommendation for a practice change.
A4A:HIGH-RELIABILITY ORGANIZATION
APPROACHING COMPE TENCE
The submission provides a
recommendation for a prac tice change, but the recom mendation is not evidence based. Or it is irrelevant to the safety concern de
scribed in part A1 or would
not logically address the
concern.
COMPETENT The submission provides a
recommendation for an evi dence-based practice change that is relevant to the safety concern described in part A1 and would logically address
the concern.
NOT EVIDENT The submission does not
discuss how the recommen dation in part A4 aligns with the principles of any organi zation.
A4B:POTENTIAL BARRIERS
APPROACHING COMPE
TENCE
The submission discusses
how the recommendation in part A4 aligns with the prin ciples of an organization,
but the alignment discussed is not specific to a high-reli
ability organization.
COMPETENT The submission accurately
discusses how the recom mendation in part A4 aligns with the principles of a high reliability organization.
NOT EVIDENT The submission does not describe any potential barri ers to the recommended practice change.
APPROACHING COMPE TENCE
The submission describes
only 1 potential barrier to
the recommended practice
change. Or the description
is irrelevant to the safety
concern in part A1.
COMPETENT The submission describes 2
potential barriers to the rec ommended practice change that are relevant to the safe ty concern in part A1.
https://tasks.wgu.edu/student/011486704/course/27720012/task/3612/overview 6/3/24, 11:04 AM Page 5 of 8
A4C:POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify any potential inter ventions to minimize the barriers from part A4b to the recommended practice
change.
A4D:SHARED DECISION-MAKING
APPROACHING COMPE
TENCE
The submission identifies
only 1 potential interven
tion that could minimize the barriers from part A4b to
the recommended practice
change. Or 1 or both inter
ventions are not relevant to the recommended practice
change.
COMPETENT The submission identifies 2
potential interventions that could minimize the barriers from part A4b to the recom mended practice change.
NOT EVIDENT The submission does not
discuss the significance of shared decision-making among the healthcare set ting’s stakeholders in imple menting the recommenda
tion in part A4.
A4E:OUTCOME MEASURE
APPROACHING COMPE
TENCE
The submission does not
logically discuss the signifi
cance of shared decision
making among the health
care setting’s relevant
stakeholders in implement ing the proposed recom
mendation in part A4. Or
the discussion is general in
nature or does not specifi
cally relate to the imple
mentation of the proposed
recommendation in part A4.
COMPETENT The submission logically dis
cusses the significance of shared decision-making among the healthcare set ting’s relevant stakeholders, and the discussion specifical ly relates to the implementa tion of the proposed recom
mendation in part A4.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not describe any outcome mea
APPROACHING COMPE TENCE
The submission describes an
COMPETENT
The submission describes a relevant outcome measure
https://tasks.wgu.edu/student/011486704/course/27720012/task/3612/overview 6/3/24, 11:04 AM Page 6 of 8
sures that could be used to evaluate the results of the recommendation in part A4.
A4F:CARE DELIVERY MODEL
outcome measure, but it
could not be used to evalu
ate the results of the pro
posed recommendation in
part A4. Or the outcome
measure is irrelevant to the proposed recommendation
in part A4.
that could be used to evalu ate the results of the pro posed recommendation in
part A4.
NOT EVIDENT The submission does not
describe the care delivery
model currently being used in the healthcare setting.
A4FI:IMPACT ON CARE DELIVERY MODEL
APPROACHING COMPE
TENCE
The submission identifies a
care delivery model current ly being used in the health
care setting but does not
describe the care delivery
model. Or the description
does not include sufficient
detail.
COMPETENT The submission thoroughly
describes the care delivery model currently being used in the healthcare setting.
NOT EVIDENT The submission does not
explain how the current care delivery model in the healthcare setting would be impacted by the change in
part A4.
APPROACHING COMPE
TENCE
The submission explains
how the care delivery model in the healthcare setting
would be impacted, but it
does not align with the care model identified in part A4f, or it does not align with the recommended change in
part A4, or the explanation
is not logical.
COMPETENT The submission logically ex
plains how the current care delivery model in the health care setting identified in part A4f would be impacted by the recommended change in
part A4.
https://tasks.wgu.edu/student/011486704/course/27720012/task/3612/overview 6/3/24, 11:04 AM Page 7 of 8
B:SOURCES
NOT EVIDENT The submission does not
include both in-text cita tions and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summa
rized.
C:PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION
APPROACHING COMPE
TENCE
The submission includes in text citations for sources
that are quoted, para
phrased, or summarized and a reference list; however,
the citations or reference
list is incomplete or inaccu
rate.
COMPETENT The submission includes in
text citations for sources that are properly quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list that ac curately identifies the au thor, date, title, and source
location as available.
NOT EVIDENT Content is unstructured, is
disjointed, or contains per vasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabu
lary or tone is unprofession al or distracts from the top ic.
APPROACHING COMPE TENCE
Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or con tains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminolo
gy is misused or ineffective.
COMPETENT Content reflects attention to
detail, is organized, and fo
cuses on the main ideas as
prescribed in the task or cho sen by the candidate. Termi nology is pertinent, is used
correctly, and effectively
conveys the intended mean ing. Mechanics, usage, and
grammar promote accurate
interpretation and under
standing.
https://tasks.wgu.edu/student/011486704/course/27720012/task/3612/overview 6/3/24, 11:04 AM Page 8 of 8
