Identify specific competencies that the MSN-prepared nurse gained, and is presently using, that reflect advanced education.

April 9, 2021

Identify and discuss the required skills and competencies of a RN in the community setting. Do these differ from those required in an acute care setting? Explain and support your answer.

April 9, 2021

discussion post 278

Discussion: Groups

The dynamic and increasingly complex world of health care often requires nurses to work collaboratively on interprofessional teams. In the group environment, individuals with unique skills and expertise come together to focus on a common goal; however, groups must become cohesive before they can become effective.

Your experiences working with groups—whether you perceive them as positive, negative, or neutral—can be used to facilitate insight and development. Health care, with its focus on interprofessional teamwork and collaboration, offers ample opportunities and an imperative for continuous learning.

For this Discussion, you focus on strategies for facilitating the group process.

To prepare:

Review the information in this week’s Learning Resources regarding the stages of group formation, problematic roles individuals play in groups, and strategies for facilitating and maintaining positive group collaboration. In particular, review Learning Exercise 19.14 of the course text.
Reflect on various groups with which you have been or are currently involved. Select one specific group to analyze for the purposes of this Discussion. Identify the purpose or task that the group is or was meant to perform.
Consider the four stages of group formation (forming, storming, norming, and performing). How would you describe the progression between stages? Is there a stage in which you believe your group is or was “stuck”?
Consider the task or group-building role you normally play in a group setting. How could you apply the information from the Learning Resources to improve your group participation and facilitation, as well as the functioning of the group as a whole?
In addition, think about which individuals within your group (including yourself) may fall into problematic roles such as the Dominator, the Aggressor, or the Blocker. How have you and your group members addressed the enactment of these roles and its impact on interactions? With information from the Learning Resources in mind, what strategies would you apply now or going forwar

List of Resources

Learning Resources

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the
Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

Marquis, B. L., & Huston, C. J. (2017).
Leadership roles and management functions in nursing: Theory and application (9th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

Chapter 19 “Organizational, Interpersonal, and Group Communication”Chapter 19 covers many aspects of the communication process, including group communication. As you read this chapter, focus on the stages of group development (forming, storming, norming, performing) and group dynamics (group task roles, group building and maintenance roles, problematic roles). Consider how you can apply these concepts as you engage in group work.

Adams, S. L., & Anantatmula, V. (2010). Social and behavioral influences on team process.
Project Management Journal, 41(4), 89–98.

Social and Behavioral Influences on Team Process by Adams, S. L.; Anantatmula, V., in Project Management Journal, Vol. 41/Issue 4. Copyright 2010 by PMI Publications. Reprinted by permission of PMI Publications via the Copyright Clearance Center.

In this article, the authors report on the effects of individual behaviors on project teams and provide a model that identifies the progress of social and behavioral development. For each stage, the authors provide recommendations for managing team members.

Chun, J. S., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Members’ needs, intragroup conflict, and group performance.
The Journal Of Applied Psychology,
99(3), 437–450. doi:10.1037/a0036363

This study theorizes and empirically investigates the relationships among the psychological needs of
group members, intragroup conflict, and
group performance.

Haynes, J., & Strickler, J. (2014). TeamSTEPPS makes strides for better communication.
Nursing,
44(1), 62–63. doi:10.1097/01.NURSE.0000438725.66087.89

Teamwork and communication are the focus of this article and include the use of the TeamStepps model for Quality Improvement.

Hogg, M. A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E., III. (2012). Intergroup leadership in organizations: Leading across group and organizational boundaries.
Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 232–255.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

The authors of this article introduce a theory on intergroup leadership that is based on social theory and intergroup relations. This theory purports that intergroup performance relies on a leader’s capacity to create intergroup relational identities.

Kaufman, B. (2012). Anatomy of dysfunctional working relationships.
Business Strategy Series, 13(2), 102–106.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

Kaufman examines the impact of dysfunctional working relationships in an organization. She provides managers with tips that will allow them to identify early warning signs of dysfunctional behavior and to minimize its effects in the workplace.

Mind Tools. (2012). Forming, storming, norming and performing: Helping new teams perform effectively, quickly. Retrieved from
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.h…

This web article discusses stages of team development and provides strategies for moving through the early stages effectively.

Mind Tools. (2009). Team charters. Retrieved from
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_95.h…

This web page features helpful information about team charters. Before you begin work on the Week 7 Assignment, you may find it helpful to create a charter that can guide your group’s work together.

Ortega, A., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Rico, R. (2013). Enhancing team learning in nursing teams through beliefs about interpersonal context.
Journal Of Advanced Nursing,
69(1), 102–111. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.05996.x

This article examines the relationship between team-level learning and performance in nursing teams, and the role of beliefs about the interpersonal context in this relationship.

Table Group. (n.d.). Retrieved July 24, 2012, from
http://www.tablegroup.com/

Patrick Lencioni is recognized worldwide for his work on teams. Under the Patrick Lencioni link, download and read articles related to addressing team dysfunctions.

Optional Resources

Marquis, B. L., & Huston, C. J. (2017).
Leadership roles and management functions in nursing: Theory and application (9th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

Chapter 16, “Socializing and Educating Staff for Team Building in a Learning Organizatio

Outstanding Performance	Excellent Performance	Competent Performance	Proficient Performance	Room for Improvement
Main 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.	44 (44%) – 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. supported by at least 3 current, credible sources	40 (40%) – 43 (43%) Responds to the discussion question(s) is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth supported by at least 3 credible references	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 post has exceptional depth and breadth supported by at least 3 credible references	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. post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references	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 1 or no credible references
Main Posting: Writing	6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely Contains no grammatical or spelling errors Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style	5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) Written clearly and concisely May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style	4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) Written somewhat concisely May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors Contains some APA formatting errors	0 (0%) – 4 (4%) 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 participation	10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation posts main discussion by due date	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation
First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.	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	8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings	7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting	6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
First Response: Writing	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	5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are 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	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	4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed Few or no credible sources are cited	0 (0%) – 4 (4%) Responses posted in the discussion lack effective Response to faculty questions are missing No credible sources are cited
First Response: Timely and full participation	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation posts by due date	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation
Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.	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	8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings	7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting	6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
Second Response: Writing	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	5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are 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	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	4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%) Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed Few or no credible sources are cited	0 (0%) – 4 (4%) Responses posted in the discussion lack effective Response to faculty questions are missing No credible sources are cited
Second Response: Timely and full participation	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely and full participation Posts by due date	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) NA	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirement for full participation

Outstanding Performance

Excellent Performance

Competent Performance

Proficient Performance

Room for Improvement

Main 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.

44 (44%) – 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.

supported by at least 3 current, credible sources

40 (40%) – 43 (43%)

Responds to the discussion question(s)

is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 credible references

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 post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 credible references

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.

post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references

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 1 or no credible references

Main Posting:
Writing

6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Written clearly and concisely

May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors

0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

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 participation

10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts main discussion by due date

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

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

8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth

First Response:
Writing

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

5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are 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

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

4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

Few or no credible sources are cited

0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are cited

First Response:
Timely and full participation

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts by due date

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

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

8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth

Second Response:
Writing

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

5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are 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

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

4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

Few or no credible sources are cited

0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are cited

Second Response:
Timely and full participation

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

Posts by due date

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6053_Week5_Discussion_Rubric

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.