NURS 8302 Clinical Assignment: DNP Project Faculty Advisor and Site Identification
NURS 8302 Clinical Assignment: DNP Project Faculty Advisor and Site Identification
Preparation for project planning will begin during the clinical component of NURS 8302. By Day 7 of Week 6, you will identify an organization that you will approach to discuss a gap in practice or practice change that you might assist with as your DNP project.
Possible appointments to explore a site for the project include those made with the chief nursing officer, director of quality improvement, or director of education. In a clinic or community agency, the contact person may be the director or someone in human resources. You may complete the project at your place of employment, as long as you are not working on your own unit or with people that you supervise.
Photo Credit: fizkes – stock.adobe.com
This project will include a development of a staff education program, development of a clinical practice guideline, or an evaluation of an existing quality improvement process. The project process cannot include patients or nursing students. The project cannot be completed at an academic setting.
Preparation for project planning will begin during the clinical component of NURS 8302. The DNP Project must follow guidelines set forth in one of the DNP Project manuals:
Clinical Practice Guidelines Manual
Staff Education Manual
Quality Improvement Evaluation Manual
NOTE: All forms and manuals are found on the DNP Capstone Resources site:
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/research-center/program-documents/dnp
Your project team will consist of a preceptor or project mentor from the organization, and a three-member Faculty Committee from Walden who will be assigned upon completion of this course. You will begin your project in the next term through the mentoring course, NURS 8702.
Once you identify a site and have contacted the organization, you will complete the DNP Project Faculty Advisor and Site Identification—Matching Request Form identifying the site and describing the possible practice change or gap to be addressed. This form must be completed and turned in by Day 7 of Week 6.
Approaching the organization:
Identify the organization where you would like to make an appointment with organization leadership to discuss your DNP project. This can be within your workplace or at a different site. The site for the project does not need to be the same site as the clinical practicum site.
Find out from the organization if there is a key person who oversees students doing DNP projects. This might be the director of nursing, the director of staff development, or the person in charge of quality improvement initiatives. In a clinic or community organization, this might be the medical director or a non-medical person in a leadership or administrative role. If there is no key person, your first contact should be someone from nursing leadership. If you are unsure of how to proceed, discuss with your NURS 8302 Faculty.
Make an appointment with the identified person (above) to discuss the Walden University DNP project.
Briefly explain the focus of the DNP project.
As a requirement of Walden University’s DNP degree, you are required to complete a DNP Project.
This project will focus on a quality improvement initiative that integrates project management tools and techniques, as well as addresses a gap in nursing practice or an identified practice change.
For the purpose of this project, a quality improvement initiative is defined as an intervention that supports an improvement in healthcare outcomes. This project will follow one of the DNP project manuals for the project and can focus on a staff education program, development of a clinical practice guideline, or an evaluation of an existing quality improvement process. The project process cannot include patients or nursing students.
The project process requires a mentor from the organization that will work with the Walden Faculty Advisor to oversee the project process.
Explore a possible gap in practice or practice change that the organization is seeking to address through an education program, clinical practice guideline, or evaluation of change completed by the organization to improve outcomes.
Discuss identification of a project mentor for the project.
Share the next steps in the process.
You will be assigned a Faculty Advisor when the next term begins (date).
You will contact organization representative during the first week of the term to set up a meeting with the Faculty Advisor, the organization representative, and the project mentor to discuss the project.
Next Week
To go to the next week:
Week 6
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_8302_Week6_Discussion_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent
90–100Good
80–89Fair
70–79Poor
: 0–69Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s).
Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three current credible sources.Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to most of the Discussion question(s).
Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible references.Points Range: 31 (31%) – 34 (34%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).
One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Cited with fewer than two credible references.Points Range: 0 (0%) – 30 (30%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s).
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible references.Main Posting:
WritingPoints Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely.
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely.
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.Main Posting:
Timely and full participationPoints Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date.Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post main Discussion by due date.First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.First Response:
WritingPoints Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.First Response:
Timely and full participationPoints Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date.Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.Second Response:
WritingPoints Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.Second Response:
Timely and full participationPoints Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date.Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.Total Points: 100
