Kibata

Sign In

Our Services

Get 15% Discount on your First Order

Order Now
[rank_math_breadcrumb]

Healthcare Policy and Analysis

  

Healthcare Policy and Analysis

Week 4 discussion Due December 16

Healthcare Policy and Analysis

Contextual Factors 

What is the impact of contextual factors on advocacy and policy? Contextual factors can range from internal (the organization, the practice, the environment, the culture, etc.) to external (laws, policies, politics, regulations, etc.). However, whether originating internally or externally, contextual factors have the capability of advancing or hindering an advocacy priority. 

For this Discussion, you will consider how contextual factors impact policy making, focusing specifically on how these factors might impact your advocacy priority. Consider what contextual factors might promote getting your priority on the agenda, as well as those that might work against it.

Resources



Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources. 


WEEKLY RESOURCES

Learning Resources

Required Resources

Readings

  • Dawes, D. E. (2020). 
    The political determinants of health. Johns Hopkins University Press.

    • Chapter 4, “How the Game is Played: Successful Employment of the Political Determinants of Health” (pp.78–111)

  • Porche, Demetrius J. (2023).
     Health policy: Applications for nurses and other health professionals (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

    • Chapter 9, “Policy Formulation and Implementation” (pp.101-112)

    • Chapter 10, “Policy Analysis” (pp.113-140)

Media

The following media resources address the contextual factors impacting the answer to the following question, “How did we get here?” regarding the current state of healthcare in the U.S.

Please select at least two from the following to view.

To Prepare:

  • Review resources about contextual factors.

  • Consider how contextual factors will impact your advocacy priority. 

By Day 3 of Week 4

Post a response detailing the following: 

  • Which contextual factors will promote getting your advocacy priority on the agenda? 

  • Which contextual factors might work against it?

  • Assignment Rubric Details

    Close

  • Rubric

  • NURS_8100_Week4_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_8100_Week4_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 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 library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)

30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.

18 to >0 pts

Poor

Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)

10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

10 pts

Total Points: 100

Share This Post

Email
WhatsApp
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Reddit

Order a Similar Paper and get 15% Discount on your First Order

Order Now

Related Questions

Week 4 discussion

Advanced practice nurses apply continuous quality improvement (CQI) processes to improve client-centered outcomes. Select one of the following client-centered care initiatives that you would like to improve in your practice area: client clinical outcomes, client satisfaction, care coordination during care transitions, or specialty consultations for clients.    Include the following

EBP

Module 2:  Overview of EBP Process and Translation Instructions: As a DNP scholar, you are expected to perform an academic search of scholarly peer-review journal articles on a given topic. For this assignment, you will choose an article from a peer-review journal database, including but not limited to CINAHL, MEDLINE,

Nursing homework

Nursing Skills & Reasoning © 2023 KeithRN LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this case study may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of KeithRN Blood Transfusion 1. Which

Rwh soap

Rwh soap It  This file is too large to display.View in new window

Week 5_JOURNAL_DNP855

 There are many theories associated with organizational behaviors. Organizational behavior theories study how employees interact with each other and the healthcare  

Week 5_DNP855

 There are many theories associated with organizational behaviors. Organizational behavior theories study how employees interact with each other and the healthcare organization  

Nursing homework

Nursing Skills & Reasoning © 2023 KeithRN LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this case study may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of KeithRN Blood Transfusion 1. Which

MM week 4

INSERT YOUR NAME HERE In-text citation for the resource – in the References list below this table include a full citation. You are required to upload the full-text file for each article represented in the matrix table into the assignment drop box. What is the purpose of the resource to

MR soap week 4

MR soap week 4 years Biological Sex: Male Race: White, Non Hispanic Clinical Information Time with Patient: 30 minutes Consult with Preceptor: 15 minutes Type of Decision-Making: Moderate complexity Student Participation: Shared (50-50) Reason for Visit: Follow-up (Routine) Chief Complaint: major depressive disorder Social Problems Addressed: Safety Role Change Procedures/Skills

powerpoint for topic

the topic is: Mother’s with infants who have hyperbilirubinemia instruction attached  Teaching Experience-316L 1. Purpose: To provide teaching to an individual client with a demonstrated need. With the completion of this assignment the student will be able to achieve the following objectives. a. Demonstrate ability to thoroughly assess the learning

Nursing

To prepare: Read and view the Learning Resources. By Day 3 of Week 10 Post a response to the following prompts: Evaluate a DNP QI project that used a mixed methods approach (choose from the list).  What was the relationship to the practice-focused question to the use of the quantitative

Nursing

To prepare: Read and view the Learning Resources. By Day 3 of Week 10 Post a response to the following prompts: Evaluate a DNP QI project that used a mixed methods approach (choose from the list).  What was the relationship to the practice-focused question to the use of the quantitative

Nursing

To Prepare Review the resources provided in the Nursing Informatics Competencies.  By Day 3 of Week 10 Post a cohesive response to the following: Consider all that you already knew and what you have learned in this class. What are the key informatics competencies that you feel every nurse should

home work

Competency Integrate social determinants, ethical concerns, and human rights for high-risk and vulnerable global populations. Student Success Criteria View the grading rubric for this deliverable by selecting the “Grading rubric” in the right menu.  Scenario As a nurse on the ethics committee of a free clinic, you are educating staff

Data analysis and visualization activity

Table 1 Patient ID Age Gender Falls (Yes/No) CAUTIs (Yes/No) Medication Errors (Yes/No) MRSA (Yes/No) Age Falls CAUTIs Medication Errors MRSA 1 65 Female Yes No Yes No 67.5 2 70 Male No Yes No Yes 3 55 Female Yes No No No Male Female 4 80 Male No Yes