Contact us:
+1 (520) 226-8615
Email:
[email protected]
NURS 6130 – Health Care Systems and Health Policy Issue Analysis Paper
NURS 6130 – Health Care Systems and Health Policy Issue Analysis Paper
This assignment addresses the following course outcomes:
PROGRAM OUTCOMES COURSE OUTCOMES
Demonstrate scholarly activity in research, evidence based practice and adapting theoretical frameworks to clinical practice. (TAE, CCE)
• Analyze how policies influence the structure and financing of health care, practice, and health outcomes.
• Interpret research, bringing the nursing perspective, for policy makers and stakeholders.
Assume clinical and/or educational leadership in diverse healthcare settings (CCE, TCC).
• Participate in the development and implementation of institutional, local, and state and federal policy.
Advocate for diverse populations and demonstrate social responsibility in healthcare delivery. (CCE, SSR)
• Examine the effect of legal and regulatory processes on
nursing practice, healthcare delivery, and outcomes.
• Advocate for policies that improve the health of the public
and the profession of nursing.
Directions: You will write a paper conducting an Issue/Policy Analysis
Due date and time: See Course Calendar/Schedule
NURS 6130 – Health Care Systems and Health Policy Issue Analysis Paper
KINDLY ORDER NOW FOR A CUSTOM-WRITTEN, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER
Grading Criteria See Issue/Policy Paper grading rubric
You will conduct an Analysis of a Health Issue or Policy. An issue is not as developed as a policy thus
there may be no policy currently written about an issue.
Use the Issue Analysis form provided here along with ideas from the course materials and any materials
you find online. The analysis paper is a less formal paper that what you may be used to writing. Yes, you
have to do citations and references, but some of those might come from governmental web sites.
Use background information from the course and/or websites as appropriate to your arguments and
context as you work to define and describe the policy or issue.
• Address all points using issue analysis process
• Points are succinct
• Points are supported by literature/web sites
Use of references:
• Use a variety of resources as appropriate to the issue
o For a paper such as this, many resources will come from non-peer reviewed journals.
o Peer reviewed scholarly journals as appropriate
o Web sites can be used (here even lay person web sites can provide assessment data)
o Wikipedia can be used as long as you reference it as a source
• The deliverable – the paper
o The form is to help you organize your thoughts and material
o The final paper can be written in an informal style
! 1. Brief description of the issue
! 2. Introduce yourself – first person is acceptable
! 3. What is your bias
! Step 1 – Answer each of the sections, complete sentences but you do not have to
write in a formal style. APA style headings not required. Be concise, this is not an
exercise to demonstrate you have covered every detail. Summarize succinctly
! Step 2 – Give a detailed description of the policy goals and objectives and list the
possible policy options
! Step 3 – Answer each of these section and use the scorecard. It is a good idea to
copy the score card and put it in your paper
! Step 4 – Write out the final policy statement
! Step 5 – Detail a discussion of what the final solution is along with the rationale.
o You must include in-text citations and a reference list
o Each section can be numbered or lettered, no need to worry about transitions from
section to section.
Due Date: Refer to NURS6130 Course Calendar
See Issue Analysis Evaluation Rubric for grading criteria
Submit your assignment via CANVAS Assignment Link
The following can be used as a framework for doing issue analysis. You may find categories to add to this
as you progress in your studies. Think of it as a tool that you can adapt to your policy analysis needs
depending on the issue you are examining.
There are several parts to Issue/Policy Analysis, quite like doing an in-depth nursing assessment or
community assessment (remember that?). One area involves a detailed look at the background and
context about the issue you are examining. This will help with the definition of the problem, defining
what is the “real” problem, teasing out the situation and conditions from the root causes, just as many
of you do in your day-to-day nursing practices.
Another part of Issue Analysis involves identifying Policy Options. This is the “what could be done about
it” part. The temptation here is to just stop at identifying one solution. What is needed is to identify
several workable solutions. Because many population health problems are complex, solutions require
multidimensional thinking. Identifying several options at the outset is also strategic. Options can be used when politically strategizing and maneuvering if needed. Use the Policy Scorecard at the bottom half of the page to evaluate your options.
Hanley, B. & Falk, N. (2007). Policy development and analysis: Understanding the process. In Mason, J.
D., Leavitt, J. K., & Chaffee, M. W. (Eds.). Policy and Politics in Nursing and Health Care (75-93). St.
Louis: Elsevier.
KINDLY ORDER NOW FOR A CUSTOM-WRITTEN, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER
Issue Analysis Paper Evaluation Rubric—NURS 6130 –
NURS 6130 – Health Care Systems and Health Policy Issue Analysis Paper
| A- Mastering | B – Developing | C – Emerging | D – Keep working | F – Challenges Abound | ||||
| Issue/ Policy Analysis
180 points
|
–Policy Issue analysis coherent, explicit & addresses all areas of issue analysis.
— Personal introduction clearly explains the reason for the analysis (who, what, why, bias) — The context is relevant to the issue –Relevant arguments support analysis –Opposing arguments clearly identified & countered. –Cost implications clearly presented. — Policy/issue options cover a variety options — Evaluation explained using the score card results – –Paper well-organized & easy to read
160 – 180 points |
— Policy Issue analysis addresses all areas fairly clearly.
–Ppt generally well-organized & easy to read. –Relevant arguments support analysis –Most opposing arguments identified & countered. –Cost considered fairly well.
49-54 points |
— Policy Issue analysis addressing areas may be implied or superficial.
–Ppt less organized, sometimes hard to follow. –Some relevant arguments presented; may omit major supporting argument(s) &/or data. –Some opposing arguments identified & countered; may omit major opposing argument. –Cost considered briefly. –May include info that does not fit.
43-48 points |
— Policy Issue analysis implied, lacking clarity & not complete.
–Ppt not well organized; hard to follow information as presented. –Some relevant arguments presented but omits major supporting argument(s) &/or data. –Some opposing arguments identified & countered; may omit major opposing argument(s). –Cost considered briefly or not at all. –Includes info that does not fit. 36-42 points |
–Fails to turn in Ppt.
OR — Policy Issue analysis is unstated lacking clarity, depth or is incomplete. –Ppt not well organized; difficult to understand as presented. –May or may not present relevant arguments. –Omits major supporting argument(s) &/or data; may or may not present & counter opposing arguments –Cost considered briefly or not at all. –Includes info that does not fit
0-35 points |
|||
| Resource Use
60 points
|
–Analysis supported with predominantly primary, credible sources.
–All sources clearly- identified & credited using APA format. –Range of resources is 10 or more references –Information is accurate & current.
54-60 points |
–Analysis supported with a majority of primary, credible sources.
–Most sources clearly identified & credited using APA format. –Range of resources used is 5-6 references –Information is generally accurate & current.
24-26 points |
–Analysis supported with sources; primary source use not always clear. May be some over-reliance on secondary & other sources.
–Most sources identified & credited using APA format; citations make it possible to trace resources used. –Range of resources used meets minimum of 4 references –While information is mostly & current, there may be an area which is incomplete, out-of-date, &/or incorrect.
21-23 points |
–Analysis may/may not be supported with sources; primary source use is not clear.
–Over reliance on secondary & other sources. –Difficulty identifying & crediting sources using APA format; citations may not make it possible to trace resources used. –Range of resources used may/may not meet minimum required –Information may be incomplete, out-of-date, &/or incorrect.
18-20 points |
–Fails to turn in Ppt.
OR –Analysis not well-supported with sources; primary source use is not clear. –Over reliance on secondary & other sources. –May have difficulty identifying & crediting sources using APA format. –Sources may be omitted; citations may not make it possible to trace resources used. –Range of resources used may/may not meet minimum required –Information may be incomplete, out-of-date, &/or incorrect 0-17 points |
|||
| Communi-
cation 60 points
|
–Consistent clarity of ideas, with professional language.
–Clear logical flow from proposal through data & arguments. –Tone is professional, assertive, respectful & demonstrates author understanding of policy process. –Concise paper;
110-60 points |
–Good overall clarity of ideas, visuals, & language with only minor areas which could benefit from further revision.
–Information, data & analysis flows logically with only minor strengthening needed in these areas. –Tone is generally professional, assertive, respectful, & shows good understanding of policy process.
24-26 points |
–Thoughts & ideas about proposal are fairly clear overall but with more areas of “fuzzy” or “clouded” thinking needing explication for reader; visuals OK. –more revision needed to clarify, expand, &/or revise to increase reader understanding.–Hard for reader to follow flow of ideas & information. –Tone is professional in intent, though some areas may need revision to increase assertive, collaborative tone. 21-23 points |
–Several areas showing confusion, lack of clear thought, & problems with language &/or visual use.
–May be too aggressive, “preachy”, &/or punitive in tone. –Tone of writing conveys little understanding of policy process & professional, collaborative intent.
18-20 points |
–Fails to turn in Ppt.
OR –Ideas, visuals, & language consistently unclear &/or inappropriate. –May be too aggressive, “preachy”, punitive –Tone conveys no understanding of policy process & professional, collaborative intent.
0-17 points |
|||
| Total Points 300 (30 % of course total) | ||||||||