Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health

ORDER CUSTOM, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS ON Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health

Word cloud generators have become popular tools for meetings and team-building events. Groups or teams are asked to use these applications to input words they feel best describe their team or their role. A “word cloud” is generated by the application that makes prominent the most-used terms, offering an image of the common thinking among participants of that role.

What types of words would you use to build a nursing word cloud? Empathetic, organized, hard-working, or advocate would all certainly apply. Would you add policy-maker to your list? Do you think it would be a very prominent component of the word cloud?

Nursing has become one of the largest professions in the world, and as such, nurses have the potential to influence policy and politics on a global scale. When nurses influence the politics that improve the delivery of healthcare, they are ultimately advocating for their patients. Hence, policy-making has become an increasingly popular term among nurses as they recognize a moral and professional obligation to be engaged in healthcare legislation.

To Prepare:

Revisit the Congress.gov website provided in the Resources and consider the role of RNs and APRNs in policy-making.
Reflect on potential opportunities that may exist for RNs and APRNs to participate in the policy-making process.

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 8

Post an explanation of at least two opportunities that exist for RNs and APRNs to actively participate in policy-making. Explain some of the challenges that these opportunities may present and describe how you might overcome these challenges. Finally, recommend two strategies you might make to better advocate for or communicate the existence of these opportunities to participate in policy-making. Be specific and provide examples.

APA format. 3 Current credible sources. please try to use these resources. Rubric provided

Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2014). Policy implementation, street level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.841978.

https://www.congress.gov

Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055–1080. doi:10.5465/AMR.1996.9704071863

attachment_1

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Rubric Detail Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout. Name: NURS_6050_Module04_Week08_Discussion_Rubric Grid View EXIT List View Main Posting Excellent Good Fair Poor 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with re!ective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Responds to the discussion question(s) and is re!ective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Responds to some of the discussion question(s). Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. 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. 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. One or two criteria are not addressed or are super”cially addressed. Is somewhat lacking re!ection 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. Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Lacks re!ection 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. Contains some APA formatting errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Posts main post by day 3. First Response Lacks depth or super”cially addresses criteria. Does not post by day 3. 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Response is on topic and may have some depth. Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health

Responses posted in the discussion may lack e#ective professional communication. Responses posted in the discussion lack e#ective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Responses to faculty questions are missing. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Response is e#ectively written in standard, edited English. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. No credible sources are cited. Response is e#ectively written in standard, edited English. Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Response is on topic and may have some depth. Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses posted in the discussion may lack e#ective professional communication. Responses posted in the discussion lack e#ective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Responses to faculty questions are missing. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Response is e#ectively written in standard, edited English. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. No credible sources are cited. Response is e#ectively written in standard, edited English. Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three di#erent days. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 di#erent days. Total Points: 100 Name:Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health