NGM2 — NGM2 TASK 1: PRACTICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROPOSAL
ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEMS AND HEALTHCARE TRANSFORMATION — D221
PRFA — NGM2
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.
REQUIREMENTS
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.
Preparation Task Overview Submissions Evaluation Report
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.
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
A2A:DATA
A2B:NATIONAL SAFETY STANDARD(S)
A3:IMPACT
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not de-
scribe a healthcare-related
situation.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission describes a
healthcare-related situation, but
the situation would not be re-
garded as a plausible systems-
level patient safety concern or
does not have the potential to
impact multiple patients given
current healthcare practices.
COMPETENT
The submission describes a
healthcare-related situation that
could be regarded as a plausible
systems-level patient safety con-
cern that has the potential to im-
pact multiple patients given cur-
rent healthcare practices.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not de-
scribe any data.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission describes data,
but the description is general in
nature, or the described data do
not demonstrate the need for
change to address the situation
in part A1.
COMPETENT
The submission describes spe-
cific data that demonstrate the
need for change to address the
situation in part A1.
NOT EVIDENT
An explanation referencing at
least 1 national patient safety
standard is not provided.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The explanation references at
least 1 national patient safety
standard but does not correctly
address how each referenced
standard applies to the situation
described in part A1.
COMPETENT
The explanation references at
least 1 national patient safety
standard and correctly addresses
how each referenced 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
COMPETENCE
The submission does not logi-
cally discuss the impact of the
COMPETENT
The submission logically dis-
cusses the impact of the safety
concern described in part A1 as it
A3A:VALUE
A4:EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE CHANGE
A4A:HIGH-RELIABILITY ORGANIZATION
A4B:POTENTIAL BARRIERS
safety concern described in part
A1 as it specifically relates to
the patient(s), staff, or health-
care setting.
specifically relates to the
patient(s), staff, and healthcare
setting.
NOT EVIDENT
An explanation of how the
safety concern from part A1 af-
fects value for the patient(s) and
the healthcare setting is not
provided.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
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 ac-
curately explains how the safety
concern from part A1 affects
value for the patient(s) and the
healthcare setting.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not pro-
vide a recommendation for a
practice change.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission provides a rec-
ommendation for a practice
change, but the recommenda-
tion is not evidence-based. Or it
is irrelevant to the safety con-
cern described in part A1 or
would not logically address the
concern.
COMPETENT
The submission provides a rec-
ommendation for an evidence-
based practice change that is rel-
evant to the safety concern de-
scribed in part A1 and would logi-
cally address the concern.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not discuss
how the recommendation in
part A4 aligns with the princi-
ples of any organization.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission discusses how
the recommendation in part A4
aligns with the principles of an
organization, but the alignment
discussed is not specific to a
high-reliability organization.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately dis-
cusses how the recommendation
in part A4 aligns with the princi-
ples of a high-reliability
organization.
A4C:POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS
A4D:SHARED DECISION-MAKING
A4E:OUTCOME MEASURE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not de-
scribe any potential barriers to
the recommended practice
change.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission describes only 1
potential barrier to the recom-
mended practice change. Or the
description is irrelevant to the
safety concern in part A1.
COMPETENT
The submission describes 2 po-
tential barriers to the recom-
mended practice change that are
relevant to the safety concern in
part A1.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not iden-
tify any potential interventions
to minimize the barriers from
part A4b to the recommended
practice change.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission identifies only 1
potential intervention that could
minimize the barriers from part
A4b to the recommended prac-
tice change. Or 1 or both inter-
ventions are not relevant to the
recommended practice change.
COMPETENT
The submission identifies 2 po-
tential interventions that could
minimize the barriers from part
A4b to the recommended prac-
tice change.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not discuss
the significance of shared deci-
sion-making among the health-
care setting’s stakeholders in
implementing the recommenda-
tion in part A4.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission does not logi-
cally discuss the significance of
shared decision-making among
the healthcare setting’s relevant
stakeholders in implementing
the proposed recommendation
in part A4. Or the discussion is
general in nature or does not
specifically relate to the imple-
mentation of the proposed rec-
ommendation in part A4.
COMPETENT
The submission logically dis-
cusses the significance of shared
decision-making among the
healthcare setting’s relevant
stakeholders, and the discussion
specifically relates to the imple-
mentation of the proposed rec-
ommendation in part A4.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not de-
scribe any outcome measures
that could be used to evaluate
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission describes an
outcome measure, but it could
not be used to evaluate the re-
COMPETENT
The submission describes a rele-
vant outcome measure that
could be used to evaluate the re-
A4F:CARE DELIVERY MODEL
A4FI:IMPACT ON CARE DELIVERY MODEL
B:SOURCES
the results of the recommenda-
tion in part A4.
sults of the proposed recom-
mendation in part A4. Or the
outcome measure is irrelevant
to the proposed recommenda-
tion in part A4.
sults of the proposed recommen-
dation in part A4.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not de-
scribe the care delivery model
currently being used in the
healthcare setting.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission identifies a care
delivery model currently being
used in the healthcare setting
but does not describe the care
delivery model. Or the descrip-
tion does not include sufficient
detail.
COMPETENT
The submission thoroughly de-
scribes 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
COMPETENCE
The submission explains how
the care delivery model in the
healthcare setting would be im-
pacted, 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 explains
how the current care delivery
model in the healthcare setting
identified in part A4f would be
impacted by the recommended
change in part A4.
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include
both in-text citations and a ref-
erence list for sources that are
quoted, paraphrased, or
summarized.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
The submission includes in-text
citations for sources that are
quoted, paraphrased, or summa-
rized and a reference list; how-
ever, the citations or reference
list is incomplete or inaccurate.
COMPETENT
The submission includes in-text
citations for sources that are
properly quoted, paraphrased, or
summarized and a reference list
that accurately identifies the au-
thor, date, title, and source loca-
tion as available.
C:PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION
NOT EVIDENT
This submission includes profes-
sional communication errors re-
lated to spelling, grammar, punc-
tuation, and sentence fluency.
For best results, please focus on
the specific Correctness errors
identified by Grammarly for
Education to help guide your re-
visions. If you need additional
assistance preparing your sub-
mission, please contact your
Instructor.
APPROACHING
COMPETENCE
This submission includes profes-
sional communication errors re-
lated to spelling, grammar, punc-
tuation, and/or sentence flu-
ency. For best results, please fo-
cus on the specific Correctness
errors identified by Grammarly
for Education to help guide your
revisions.
COMPETENT
This submission demonstrates
correct use of spelling, grammar,
punctuation, and sentence flu-
ency. You have demonstrated
quality professional communica-
tion skills in this submission.
