Discussion 2: What is the potential impact of nurses holding elected office? How might healthcare policy advocacy change if nurses are seated at the table?

Discussion 2: What is the potential impact of nurses holding elected office? How might healthcare policy advocacy change if nurses are seated at the table?

Discussion 2: What is the potential impact of nurses holding elected office? How might healthcare policy advocacy change if nurses are seated at the table?

What is the potential impact of nurses holding elected office? How might healthcare policy advocacy change if nurses are seated at the table?

For this Discussion, you will consider what it takes to run for an elected office, as well as explore what is at stake for nurses to run for these positions. You will identify nurses elected to public office, and you will consider the impact of these positions. How might learning about policy and advocacy pave the wave for a future as an elected official?

Resources

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

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

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, D. J. (2023). Health policy: Applications for nurses and other healthcare professionals (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Chapter 13, “Board Governance and Policy Leadership” (pp. 185–192)

Chapter 14, “Institutional and Organizational/ Association Policy” (pp. 193–199)

Chapter 17, “Policy Institutes” (pp. 255–264)

American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology. (2022). Advocacy and policyLinks to an external site.. https://www.aana.com/advocacy

American Association of Nurse Practitioners. (2022). AANP advocacy: Championing the NP role and amplifying the NP voiceLinks to an external site.. https://www.aanp.org/advocacy

American Nurses Association. (2018). ANA advocacy toolkitLinks to an external site.. https://rnaction.org/SitePages/toolkit.aspx

American Nurses Association. (n.d.). Nurses serving in congressLinks to an external site.. https://www.nursingworld.org/practice-policy/advocacy/federal/nurses-serving-in-congress/

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Policy, Performance, and Evaluation. (2021). Resources for writing briefsLinks to an external site.. https://www.cdc.gov/policy/polaris/training/writing-briefs/index.html

IDRC. (n.d.). How to write a policy briefLinks to an external site.. https://idrc-crdi.ca/en/funding/resources-idrc-grantees/how-write-policy-brief

International Council of Nurses. (n.d.). https://www.icn.ch/Links to an external site.

International Council of Nurses. (2022). Nursing policyLinks to an external site.. https://www.icn.ch/nursing-policy

National League for Nursing. (2022). Public policyLinks to an external site.. https://www.nln.org/public-policy

National League for Nursing. (2022). Toolkit homeLinks to an external site.. https://www.nln.org/education/teaching-resources/professional-development-programsteaching-resources/toolkits

Open Secrets. (2021). Health professionalsLinks to an external site.: Summary. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H01

Pitsker, K. (2019, November 26). How to run for local office. KiplingerLinks to an external site.. https://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/t043-c000-s002-how-to-run-for-local-office.html

She Should RunLinks to an external site.. (2020). https://sheshouldrun.org/Links to an external site.

Note: Explore this site on the topic of “Running for Elected Office.” You will need to join (free) to access the self-quizzes and materials.

United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our worldLinks to an external site.. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

Weakley, S., & Tarrega, M. (n.d.). How to write a policy briefLinks to an external site.. https://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/TSRFWritingaPolicyBrief.pdf

Document: Global Issues Impacting Nursing Download Global Issues Impacting Nursing(PDF)

Media

American Nurses Association. (2021, May 11). RNAction: When nurses speak, Washington listensLinks to an external site. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJD60OucJn0

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 1 minute.

Parks, M., & Weiner, C. (2019, October 19). How to run for officeLinks to an external site. [Multimedia]. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2019/10/15/770332855/how-to-run-for-office

To Prepare:

Review resources about running for elected office.

Consider what it might take—including resources, manpower, education, money, etc.—to run for office.

Research nurses who have become elected officials.

Consider why nurses might consider running for office.

By Day 3 of Week 10

Post a response detailing the following:

What does it take to run for elected office? What are the resources you may need?

After determining what it takes to run for office, identify an elected official that is a nurse (anywhere in the world), and then provide an introduction, with a picture, for this official.

Finally, explain why running for office is important for nurses to consider.

By Day 6 of Week 10

Read a selection of your colleagues’ posts. Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days by supporting or expanding on the ideas identified by your colleagues or sharing additional perspectives on the issue described by your colleagues.

NURS_8100_Week8-10_Discussion2_Rubric

NURS_8100_Week8-10_Discussion2_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