NUR422: Leadership and Management
Graded Group Assignment: Quality Improvement Initiative
Scholarly Paper Rubric
100-90 Points = A
89-80 Points = B
79-70 Points = C
69-60 Points = D
Below 60 = F
The grade you receive will account for 30% of your final grade of the course. The following criteria will be used to grade
your 8-10 page Paper: Quality Improvement Project. Keep in mind that the score requirement described under each
point on the scale defines the minimum performance that must be demonstrated to achieve that score. Lesser points
will be awarded if the elements of each criterion are not met or only partially met.
Team Participation Expectations
Active participation in team projects is an expectation for each team member. In addition to the criteria listed in the
rubric, each student’s grade is determined by the following team participation expectations;



your overall participation in the project planning
providing relevant and timely contributions that advance the project
(Including any work on final revisions)
meeting timelines for contributions established by team members
Note: Limited participation in the team project will result in a loss of up to 10 points to a student’s grade however failure
to demonstrate participation in one more of the team participation expectation will result in a grade of 0 for the project.
Criteria
I. Team Process
1. Select the members of your
interdisciplinary team and provide
rationale for their selection.
2. Summarize characteristics of a
successful team you feel are most
critical to achieve your desired
outcome and describe the strategies
you would use to foster the
development of these characteristics.
3. Discuss the communication strategies
you would utilized to establish team
relationships required to successfully
initiate a quality improvement plan to
reduce patient falls with injuries.
Program Outcome:
Integrates multiple communication
strategies to establish relationships with
clients and health care team members for
the provision of safe, quality care.
Exceptional
Good
Minimal
Basic
Weak
25 points
23 points
21 points
19 points
17 points
All components of
the criterion are
addressed in a
comprehensive and
thorough manner.
While all
components of the
criterion are
addressed well,
one component
needed a more
thorough
discussion
While all components
are addressed
adequately, 2
components require a
more thorough
discussion.
Although all
components are
present, the content is
superficial or not well
developed
Did not address
one or more
components or
was off topic.
II. Identification of the Problem
1. Compare the rate of falls with
injuries within the surgical division to
national benchmarks.
25 points
23 points
All components of
the criterion are
addressed in a
comprehensive and
thorough manner.
While all
components of the
are addressed well,
one component
needed a more
thorough
discussion
15 points
13 points
2. Discuss the long term impact to
patients who experience fall(s) with
injuries while hospitalized.
21 points
While all components
are addressed
adequately, 2
components require a
more thorough
discussion.
19points
Although all
components are
present, the content is
superficial or not well
developed
17 points
Did not address
one or more
components or
was off topic.
3. Discuss the financial impact of
benchmarks on reimbursement from
Medicare, insurances and Pay for
Performance Program.
III. Application of PDSA Methodology
All components of
the criterion are
1. Address the three discovery questions: addressed in a
comprehensive and
a. What is the team trying to accomplish? thorough manner.
b. How will the team know that a change
has been effective?
c. What changes can the team make that
will result in improvement?
While all
components of the
are addressed well,
one component
needed a more
thorough
discussion
11 points
While all components
are addressed
adequately, 2
components require a
more thorough
discussion.
9 points
Although all
components are
present, the content is
superficial or not well
developed
7 points
Did not address
one or more
components or
was off topic.
IV. Quality Improvement Process
Utilizing the PDSA quality improvement
methodology, formulate a quality
improvement process to decrease patient
falls with injuries.
1. Plan: Formulate for quality improvement
recommendations:
a. Analyze the problem; evaluate the
current literature to predict the common
factors that contribute to patient falls with
injuries that occur during hospitalization.
b. Select three evidence-based
interventions that will be implemented to
address patient falls with injuries and
include any budgetary considerations
that would be needed based on the
interventions you selected.
2. Do: Strategies used to implement the
selected evidence-based intervention.
3. Study: Criteria the team will utilize to
determine if the evidence-based
interventions have been successful.
a. Include information that will be
analyzed to determine the success of the
20 points
18 points
16 points
14 points
12 points
All components of
the criterion are
addressed in a
comprehensive and
thorough manner.
While all
components of the
criterion are
addressed well,
one component
needed a more
thorough
discussion
While all components of
the criterion are
addressed adequately,
two components require
a more thorough
discussion.
While all components of
the criterion are
addressed, three
components require a
more thorough
discussion.
Did not address
one or more
components or
was off topic.
interventions.
4. Act: Evaluate if the interventions should
be continued and expanded based on
the team’s prediction of success with the
new actions.
15 points
V. Scholarly Writing
The paper is
exemplary and
1. Paper is well written, organized within the meets all 4
components of the
paper limitation.
criterion.
2. Grammar, spelling, punctuation are
correct.
3. Predominant use of primary sources and
recent journals.
4. Conforms to APA standards for
headings, citations and reference page.
13 points
While the paper is
well done and
addressed all 4
components of the
criterion, one
component had
limitations.
11 points
While the paper is good
and addressed all 4
criterion components of
the criterion, two
components had
limitations.
9 points
Although the paper is
acceptable and
addressed all 4
components, three of
the components had
limitations.
7 points
The paper did
not contain one
or more of the
required
components.