NURS 4220 Leadership Competencies Nursing
NURS 4220: Leadership Competencies in Nursing and Healthcare — Complete Assignment Brief, Discussion Posts, Practicum Discussions & Grading Rubrics
Course Overview
NURS 4220 is the capstone-adjacent leadership course in the Walden RN-BSN completion program. It requires students to take demonstrated leadership competency — not just theoretical knowledge — and apply it to real practice problems in their own healthcare organizations. The didactic thread introduces students to quality improvement science, just culture principles, leadership theory, organizational change, interprofessional collaboration, and QI data tools such as run charts and PDSA cycles. The practicum thread runs concurrently: students work on-site with an approved preceptor (BSN-prepared or higher) for 72 hours to design, execute, and present an evidence-based Quality and Safety Improvement Project to their interprofessional team.
The two threads are bridged through weekly Practicum Discussion posts that require students to connect course concepts to live project work. Written assignments build progressively — a Leadership Self-Assessment in Week 1, an Organizational Collaboration Paper in Week 3, a QI Analysis with run chart in Week 5, and a final Quality and Safety Project Presentation delivered at the practicum site in Week 6.
Week 1: Leadership in Nursing — Identity, Theory, and Self-Assessment
Learning Objectives
- Analyze core leadership theories and their application to nursing practice in complex healthcare organizations.
- Evaluate the concept of just culture and its relationship to patient safety and organizational learning.
- Complete a structured leadership self-assessment to identify personal strengths and areas for development.
- Connect personal leadership identity to Walden’s mission of social change and the AACN BSN Essentials.
- Identify a quality and safety problem in the practicum setting with your preceptor.
Weekly Schedule
| Due By | Task |
|---|---|
| Week 1, Days 1–2 | Read Learning Resources on leadership theories, just culture, and the Magnet Model. Review the Leadership Self-Assessment instrument. |
| Week 1, Day 3 | Post your initial Didactic Discussion response (300–500 words). |
| Week 1, Days 4–5 | Review peer Didactic Discussion posts. Draft two peer responses. Begin the Leadership Self-Assessment Assignment. |
| Week 1, Day 6 | Post two peer Didactic Discussion responses. Post your Practicum Discussion initial response. |
| Week 1, Day 7 | Submit Assignment 1: Leadership Self-Assessment. Respond to two peers in the Practicum Discussion. |
Didactic Discussion: Leadership Theory in Your Practice Setting
Bashaw and Lounsbury (2012) describe the challenge of building a new organizational culture by blending Magnet principles with just culture — two frameworks that both require nurse leaders at every level to make deliberate choices about how they lead, communicate, and respond to error. Before you can lead organizational change, you must know what kind of leader you already are.
By Day 3 — Initial Post (300–500 words)
Post a 300- to 500-word response to one of the following options:
Option 1: Identify the leadership theory (e.g., transformational, transactional, servant, authentic) that most closely aligns with your current nursing practice approach. Describe a specific clinical situation where you applied — or could have applied — this leadership style. Explain how the just culture principles described by Bashaw and Lounsbury (2012) inform or would improve that approach in your setting.
Option 2: Analyze how the Magnet Professional Practice Model applies to your current workplace. Identify one structural or cultural barrier in your organization that limits nursing leadership at the staff nurse level. Then propose one evidence-based strategy to reduce or remove that barrier, supported by at least one source from this week’s Learning Resources.
By Day 6 — Peer Responses (min. 2)
Offer a specific, evidence-based perspective on the leadership theory or barrier they described, suggest an additional strategy or resource, or draw a connection between their analysis and a quality or safety outcome you have observed in practice.
Didactic Discussion Rubric — Week 1
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Fair (2) | Poor (1) | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership Theory or Magnet Analysis | Specific leadership theory or Magnet model component clearly identified and connected to a real clinical situation; demonstrates BSN-level critical thinking. | Theory or model component identified; clinical connection present but could be more specific. | Theory named or model mentioned without substantive clinical connection. | No specific theory or model identified; response largely abstract. | 30 |
| Just Culture or Barrier/Strategy Analysis | Just culture principles explicitly applied, or barrier and evidence-based strategy presented; analysis is realistic for the described setting. | Just culture or barrier strategy present; evidence base partially developed. | Just culture or barrier mentioned but analysis is thin or without evidence. | No analysis of just culture or organizational barrier. | 30 |
| Use of Evidence and APA 7 (min. 1 source) | At least one Learning Resource source accurately cited in-text in APA 7; evidence clearly integrated into the analysis. | Source cited; minor APA errors; integration adequate. | Source referenced but not in APA format or not integrated. | No evidence cited. | 25 |
| Peer Responses (min. 2) and Writing Quality | Both responses add a specific new perspective, evidence, or strategy; BSN-level writing throughout. | Both responses present; minor gaps in substance or writing. | Thin responses or only one posted. | Responses absent or one sentence each. | 15 |
Total Possible: 100 points
Practicum Discussion — Week 1: Identifying Your Quality and Safety Problem
Describe the quality and safety problem you have identified in your practicum setting in collaboration with your preceptor:
- A brief description of the problem (what is happening, how frequently, and who is affected).
- The quality or safety category (e.g., patient falls, HAIs, medication errors, readmissions, communication failures).
- The organizational context: unit type, patient population, and relevant background.
- Why you and your preceptor selected this problem as the focus for your Quality and Safety Improvement Project.
Respond to at least two colleagues by offering a constructive question about their problem selection, identifying a relevant quality indicator, or drawing a parallel from your own practicum experience.
Assignment 1: Leadership Self-Assessment (2 to 3 Pages)
Complete the structured Leadership Self-Assessment instrument from this week’s Learning Resources fully and honestly before beginning your written analysis. Then write a 2- to 3-page paper addressing:
- Leadership Style Identification: Identify the leadership style(s) most evident in your results. Connect to at least one leadership theory from the Learning Resources.
- Strengths (2): Describe two specific leadership strengths your results revealed. Illustrate each with a concrete clinical example.
- Areas for Development (2): Identify two specific gaps. Explain how each affects — or could affect — patient care quality, team function, or your practicum project.
- Development Plan: Outline two actionable strategies with a realistic timeline and a specific resource (academic, professional, or organizational) for each.
- Support with at least two APA 7-cited sources from this week’s Learning Resources.
Save as: WK1Assgn+LastName+FirstInitial.(extension). Submit by Day 7 of Week 1.
Assignment 1 Rubric — Leadership Self-Assessment
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Fair (2) | Poor (1) | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership Style Identification and Theory Connection | Leadership style clearly identified from self-assessment; connected to a specific theory from the Learning Resources with accurate explanation. | Leadership style identified; theory connection present but partially developed. | Leadership style named but theory connection missing or incorrect. | No leadership style identified or no theory connection attempted. | 20 |
| Two Strengths with Clinical Examples | Two distinct strengths identified; each illustrated with a specific, realistic clinical example that demonstrates the strength in action. | Two strengths identified; examples present but one may lack specificity. | Only one strength clearly identified or examples are generic. | Strengths not identified or no clinical examples provided. | 25 |
| Two Areas for Development and Practice Impact | Two specific areas for development identified; impact on patient care, team function, or practicum project clearly articulated for each. | Two areas identified; impact on practice addressed but could be more specific. | Only one area identified, or impact on practice is vague. | Areas for development not identified or practice impact absent. | 25 |
| Development Plan (2 Strategies with Timeline and Resource) | Two actionable strategies; each includes a realistic timeline and a specific resource; strategies are directly tied to the identified areas for development. | Two strategies present; timeline or resource partially developed for one or more. | Only one strategy or strategies lack timelines and resources. | No development plan provided. | 20 |
| APA 7 and BSN-Level Writing Quality | Two sources correctly cited in APA 7; clear introduction, body, and conclusion; BSN-level scholarly voice; no significant writing errors. | Minor APA errors; structure and writing mostly meet BSN standards. | Several APA errors; structure inconsistent or writing below BSN level. | No APA citations; no discernible structure. | 10 |
Total Possible: 100 points
Week 2: Organizational Culture, Change Management, and Conflict Resolution
Learning Objectives
- Analyze the relationship between organizational culture, leadership style, and patient safety outcomes.
- Evaluate change management models (Kotter’s 8-Step, Lewin’s) and their application to nursing-led QI initiatives.
- Identify sources of workplace conflict and apply evidence-based resolution strategies.
- Connect change management concepts to the quality and safety problem in your practicum project.
Weekly Schedule
| Due By | Task |
|---|---|
| Week 2, Days 1–2 | Read Learning Resources on change management models, conflict resolution, and organizational culture. |
| Week 2, Day 3 | Post your initial Didactic Discussion response (300–500 words). |
| Week 2, Days 4–5 | Review peer posts. Draft two peer responses. Begin drafting the Organizational Collaboration Paper. |
| Week 2, Day 6 | Post two peer Didactic Discussion responses. Post your Practicum Discussion initial response. |
| Week 2, Day 7 | No written assignment due. Continue developing the Organizational Collaboration Paper. |
Didactic Discussion: Change Management and Conflict in Your Organization
By Day 3 — Initial Post (300–500 words)
Post a 300- to 500-word response to one of the following options:
Option 1: Identify a significant organizational change in your clinical setting within the last three years. Using Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model or Lewin’s Change Theory, analyze how the change was — or should have been — implemented. Identify which step or phase was executed most effectively and which was most problematic. Support with at least one APA-cited source.
Option 2: Describe a workplace conflict you experienced or observed in your clinical setting that affected team cohesion or patient care quality. Identify the type of conflict (intrapersonal, interpersonal, or intergroup), analyze the leadership response, evaluate whether it aligned with evidence-based conflict resolution strategies, and propose one improvement that could have produced a better outcome for the team and for patient safety.
Didactic Discussion Rubric — Week 2
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Fair (2) | Poor (1) | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Change Model Application or Conflict Type Identification | Change model applied accurately to a real organizational scenario, or conflict type correctly identified and analyzed; BSN-level critical thinking demonstrated. | Model applied or conflict identified with adequate analysis; minor gaps in accuracy. | Model or conflict type mentioned without substantive application. | No specific change model applied or conflict type identified. | 30 |
| Phase/Leadership Response Evaluation | Specific change phase or leadership response clearly evaluated with evidence; strengths and weaknesses identified. | Evaluation present; evidence partially used; one dimension more developed. | Evaluation thin or primarily descriptive. | No evaluation of the change phase or leadership response. | 30 |
| Evidence-Based Strategy or Improvement Proposed | Specific, realistic, evidence-based strategy or improvement proposed; connection to patient safety or team outcomes is explicit. | Strategy proposed; connection to outcomes partially articulated. | Strategy mentioned without evidence base or outcome connection. | No strategy or improvement proposed. | 25 |
| Peer Responses and Writing Quality | Both responses substantive and add a new perspective or evidence; BSN-level writing maintained. | Both present; minor issues in substance or writing. | Thin responses or only one posted. | Responses absent. | 15 |
Total Possible: 100 points
Practicum Discussion — Week 2: Change Management in Your Project Setting
Reflect on this week’s change management content in the context of your practicum project:
- What barriers to change have you or your preceptor already identified in the setting where your QI project will be implemented?
- Which change management model seems best suited to your project’s context and organizational culture? Explain why.
- Describe one specific strategy you plan to use to build buy-in from the interprofessional team members who will be involved in your project.
Week 3: Interprofessional Collaboration and Organizational Strategic Planning
Learning Objectives
- Analyze the role of interprofessional collaboration in quality improvement and safe patient care.
- Evaluate strategic planning models and their application at the unit and organizational level.
- Examine the relationship between organizational values, mission, and the nurse leader’s role.
- Submit the Organizational Collaboration Paper demonstrating evidence-based analysis of an interprofessional team dynamic.
Weekly Schedule
| Due By | Task |
|---|---|
| Week 3, Days 1–2 | Read Learning Resources on interprofessional collaboration, strategic planning, and organizational mission/values alignment. |
| Week 3, Day 3 | Post your initial Didactic Discussion response (300–500 words). |
| Week 3, Days 4–5 | Review peer posts. Draft two peer responses. Finalize Assignment 2. |
| Week 3, Day 6 | Post two peer Didactic Discussion responses. Post your Practicum Discussion initial response. |
| Week 3, Day 7 | Submit Assignment 2: Organizational Collaboration Paper. Respond to two peers in Practicum Discussion. |
Didactic Discussion: Strategic Planning and Interprofessional Collaboration
By Day 3 — Initial Post (300–500 words)
Post a 300- to 500-word response to one of the following options:
Option 1: Describe how your current healthcare organization’s mission and values are (or are not) visibly reflected in the daily operations of your unit. Identify one instance where organizational values directly shaped a leadership decision or practice change. Analyze whether that decision reflects a commitment to quality, safety, equity, or patient-centered care — and explain what you would do differently if the alignment was weak.
Option 2: Analyze a specific interprofessional collaboration experience in your clinical setting. Describe the team composition, goal, and outcome. Evaluate whether the collaboration demonstrated competencies from the IPEC Core Competency Framework. Identify one barrier that limited its effectiveness and propose one evidence-based strategy to address it.
Didactic Discussion Rubric — Week 3
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Fair (2) | Poor (1) | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mission/Values Analysis or Collaboration Description | Mission-values alignment or interprofessional collaboration described with specificity; organizational or team context is clear and clinically grounded. | Description adequate; specificity or clinical grounding could be stronger. | Description vague or not clearly connected to the student’s practice setting. | No specific mission-values analysis or collaboration described. | 30 |
| Leadership Decision Evaluation or IPEC Competency Analysis | Specific leadership decision or IPEC competency dimension analyzed; connection to quality, safety, or patient-centered care is explicit. | Analysis present; one dimension identified but not fully developed. | Analysis largely descriptive; IPEC competencies mentioned without application. | No evaluation or IPEC analysis. | 30 |
| Barrier and Evidence-Based Strategy | One specific collaboration barrier identified; proposed strategy is realistic, evidence-based, and connected to a quality or team outcome. | Barrier and strategy present; evidence base partially developed. | Barrier identified without strategy or evidence. | No barrier or strategy identified. | 25 |
| Peer Responses and Writing Quality | Both responses add substantive content; BSN-level writing throughout. | Both present; minor gaps. | Thin responses or only one posted. | Responses absent. | 15 |
Total Possible: 100 points
Practicum Discussion — Week 3: Interprofessional Team and Project Planning
- Describe the interprofessional team members who are involved (or will be involved) in your Quality and Safety Improvement Project.
- Explain the role each team member will play in designing or implementing the improvement plan.
- Identify one communication or collaboration challenge your team has encountered (or anticipates) and describe your strategy to address it.
Assignment 2: Organizational Collaboration Paper (3 to 4 Pages)
Write a 3- to 4-page paper addressing the following:
- Organizational Context: Briefly describe the healthcare organization or unit where your practicum is taking place — type, size, patient population, and nursing leadership structure.
- Collaboration Analysis: Identify and describe one current or recent interprofessional collaboration initiative. Analyze its effectiveness using at least two IPEC Core Competency domains as your evaluative framework.
- Barriers to Collaboration (2): Identify two specific structural, cultural, or communication barriers that currently limit interprofessional collaboration in your setting.
- Evidence-Based Strategies (2): Propose two evidence-based strategies to address the barriers. For each, explain how it would improve collaboration and contribute to a specific quality or safety outcome.
- Practicum Project Connection: Briefly explain how the collaboration dynamics you analyzed relate to the design or implementation of your QI project.
- Support with at least three peer-reviewed, APA 7-cited sources.
Save as: WK3Assgn+LastName+FirstInitial.(extension). Submit by Day 7 of Week 3.
Assignment 2 Rubric — Organizational Collaboration Paper
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Fair (2) | Poor (1) | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collaboration Analysis Using IPEC Framework | Specific interprofessional initiative described; two IPEC competency domains applied accurately as an evaluative framework; analysis is evidence-based. | Initiative described; two IPEC domains referenced but one applied less rigorously. | Initiative described without IPEC framework or only one domain addressed. | No interprofessional initiative described or no IPEC analysis attempted. | 25 |
| Two Collaboration Barriers Identified | Two specific, distinct structural, cultural, or communication barriers clearly identified; connected to the student’s actual organizational context. | Two barriers identified; one or both could be more specific or organizationally grounded. | Only one barrier or barriers are generic. | No collaboration barriers identified. | 20 |
| Two Evidence-Based Strategies with Outcome Connection | Two evidence-based strategies clearly proposed; each addresses a stated barrier and is connected to a specific quality or safety outcome. | Two strategies present; one or both lack a clear outcome connection. | Only one strategy or strategies not clearly evidence-based. | No evidence-based strategies proposed. | 25 |
| Practicum Project Connection | Link between the collaboration analysis and the QI project is specific and logical; demonstrates integration of course concepts with practicum experience. | Connection made but could be more specific or integrated. | Connection attempted but superficial. | No practicum project connection. | 15 |
| APA 7, Sources (min. 3), Essay Writing Quality | Three or more peer-reviewed sources correctly cited in APA 7; 3–4 page requirement met; BSN-level scholarly voice; clear structure. | Minor APA errors; three sources used; structure and writing mostly meet BSN standard. | Several APA errors; fewer than three sources; writing below BSN standard in places. | No APA citations; structure absent; fewer than two sources. | 15 |
Total Possible: 100 points
Week 4: Quality Improvement Science — Tools, Data, and the PDSA Cycle
Learning Objectives
- Analyze key QI tools used in healthcare: run charts, PDSA cycles, fishbone diagrams, and process maps.
- Interpret run chart data to identify patterns of variation — signals and noise — relevant to a specific quality problem.
- Apply PDSA cycle methodology to a defined quality and safety problem in a clinical setting.
- Begin quantitative analysis of baseline data relevant to the practicum QI project.
Weekly Schedule
| Due By | Task |
|---|---|
| Week 4, Days 1–2 | Read Perla, Provost, & Murray (2011) on run charts. Review QP Staff (2010) Guru Guide. Watch this week’s Laureate Education QI videos. |
| Week 4, Day 3 | Post your initial Didactic Discussion response (300–500 words). |
| Week 4, Days 4–5 | Review peer posts. Draft two peer responses. Begin drafting Assignment 3. |
| Week 4, Day 6 | Post two peer Didactic Discussion responses. Post your Practicum Discussion initial response. |
| Week 4, Day 7 | No written assignment due. Continue developing Assignment 3. |
Didactic Discussion: QI Tools and Data Interpretation
Perla, Provost, and Murray (2011) describe the run chart as one of the simplest and most powerful analytical tools available for learning from variation in healthcare processes. Its power lies in its ability to distinguish between common-cause variation — the expected background noise of any system — and special-cause variation, which signals that something meaningful has changed. Every quality improvement project begins with understanding the data that describes the problem.
By Day 3 — Initial Post (300–500 words)
Post a 300- to 500-word response to one of the following options:
Option 1: Describe a quality or safety problem in your clinical setting for which you have (or could collect) outcome data over time. Explain how you would construct a run chart to track it. Identify what a signal would look like on your run chart and what action you would take if you observed one. Connect your approach to the PDSA methodology.
Option 2: Analyze a fishbone (Ishikawa) diagram for a quality or safety problem you have encountered in practice. Identify the main cause categories (staff, equipment, process, environment, policy) and populate at least two causes per category. Explain which cause is most amenable to a nursing-led intervention and why. Describe one PDSA cycle you would design to test a solution.
By Day 6 — Peer Responses (min. 2)
Identify a pattern they might look for on their run chart, suggest a root cause they may not have considered, or offer a specific PDSA modification that could strengthen their improvement test.
Didactic Discussion Rubric — Week 4
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Fair (2) | Poor (1) | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run Chart Application or Fishbone Construction | Run chart application or fishbone diagram described with specificity; demonstrates correct understanding of variation or root cause categories. | Application or diagram described with adequate accuracy; minor conceptual gaps. | Run chart or fishbone referenced without substantive application. | No run chart or fishbone discussed. | 30 |
| Signal Identification or Cause Prioritization | Signal or priority root cause clearly identified with logical rationale; connection to patient safety or nursing-led action is explicit. | Signal or cause identified; rationale partially developed. | Signal or cause mentioned without clear rationale. | No signal or priority cause identified. | 30 |
| PDSA Cycle Design | Specific PDSA cycle described with all four phases; the test is realistic and connected to the identified problem. | PDSA cycle present; one or two components underdeveloped. | PDSA mentioned without substantive design. | No PDSA cycle described. | 25 |
| Peer Responses and Writing Quality | Both responses add specific, QI-relevant content; BSN-level writing maintained. | Both present; minor gaps. | Thin or only one posted. | Responses absent. | 15 |
Total Possible: 100 points
Practicum Discussion — Week 4: Baseline Data and QI Tools
- Describe the baseline data you have collected (or are currently collecting) on your quality and safety problem.
- Explain which QI tool you are using to analyze or display the baseline data and why you selected it.
- Identify one challenge you are encountering in data collection or analysis and describe how you are addressing it with your preceptor.
Week 5: Building the Evidence-Based Quality Improvement Plan
Learning Objectives
- Apply evidence-based practice principles to design a quality and safety improvement plan.
- Evaluate a run chart using the four rules of analysis to identify meaningful patterns.
- Develop an evidence-based intervention recommendation supported by peer-reviewed literature.
- Submit the QI Analysis and Run Chart Assignment.
Weekly Schedule
| Due By | Task |
|---|---|
| Week 5, Days 1–2 | Review run chart analysis rules (Perla et al., 2011). Review Assignment 3 instructions. |
| Week 5, Day 3 | Post your initial Didactic Discussion response (300–500 words). |
| Week 5, Days 4–5 | Review peer posts. Draft two peer responses. Finalize Assignment 3. |
| Week 5, Day 6 | Post two peer Didactic Discussion responses. Post your Practicum Discussion initial response. |
| Week 5, Day 7 | Submit Assignment 3: QI Analysis and Run Chart. Respond to two peers in Practicum Discussion. |
Didactic Discussion: Designing Evidence-Based Interventions
By Day 3 — Initial Post (300–500 words)
Post a 300- to 500-word response to one of the following options:
Option 1: Describe the quality and safety improvement intervention you are proposing for your practicum project. Using at least two peer-reviewed sources published within the last five years, make the case for why this intervention is evidence-based and likely to produce measurable improvement. Identify one potential unintended consequence and describe how you would monitor for it.
Option 2: Analyze how the IHI Triple Aim applies to the quality or safety problem your practicum project addresses. Identify which dimension your project primarily targets, explain why it is most relevant, and describe one concrete way your proposed intervention addresses a second dimension as well.
Didactic Discussion Rubric — Week 5
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Fair (2) | Poor (1) | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence-Based Intervention or Triple Aim Analysis | Intervention clearly described and supported by two recent peer-reviewed sources, or Triple Aim applied accurately with dimension identification. | Intervention described or Triple Aim applied; one source or dimension less fully developed. | Intervention or Triple Aim mentioned without substantive evidence or application. | No evidence-based intervention or Triple Aim analysis. | 30 |
| Measurable Improvement Connection or Second Dimension | Specific quality indicator and its measurability addressed, or a second Triple Aim dimension convincingly connected to the project. | Quality indicator or second dimension identified; connection partially developed. | Indicator or dimension mentioned without measurable connection. | No indicator or second dimension addressed. | 30 |
| Unintended Consequence or Monitoring Strategy | One realistic unintended consequence identified and a monitoring strategy proposed; demonstrates systems-level thinking. | Unintended consequence identified; monitoring strategy partially developed. | Unintended consequence mentioned without monitoring strategy. | No unintended consequence identified. | 25 |
| Peer Responses and Writing Quality | Both responses add evidence or a specific systems perspective; BSN-level writing maintained. | Both present; minor gaps. | Thin or only one posted. | Responses absent. | 15 |
Total Possible: 100 points
Practicum Discussion — Week 5: Intervention Design and Team Feedback
- A brief description of the proposed intervention and the evidence supporting its use.
- How your preceptor and interprofessional team responded to the intervention proposal and any modifications they recommended.
- The implementation timeline and any remaining logistical challenges.
Assignment 3: QI Analysis and Run Chart (3 to 4 Pages + Run Chart Visual)
Write a 3- to 4-page paper and include a run chart visual addressing the following:
- Quality Problem Description: Briefly restate the quality and safety problem, including unit context, affected population, and baseline data source.
- Run Chart Construction and Display: Create a run chart using baseline data (minimum 10 data points). Include as a figure. Label the y-axis (measure), x-axis (time units), median line, and any signals identified.
- Run Chart Analysis: Apply at least two of the four analysis rules (Perla et al., 2011). Identify signals present and interpret what patterns tell you about the stability of the process.
- Evidence-Based Intervention: Based on your run chart analysis, describe the proposed intervention supported by at least two peer-reviewed sources.
- Expected Outcome: State the measurable improvement expected on a future run chart after the intervention. Identify the metric and monitoring frequency.
Save as: WK5Assgn+LastName+FirstInitial.(extension). Submit by Day 7 of Week 5.
Assignment 3 Rubric — QI Analysis and Run Chart
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Fair (2) | Poor (1) | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run Chart Construction (Correct Elements) | Min. 10 data points; y-axis, x-axis, and median line correctly labeled; signals marked; chart is readable and professionally presented. | Run chart present and mostly correct; one labeling or data point issue. | Run chart present but missing required elements. | No run chart or chart unrecognizable as a QI tool. | 20 |
| Run Chart Analysis (min. 2 Rules Applied) | Two analysis rules applied correctly; findings clearly stated; signals vs. noise interpretation accurate and connected to the quality problem. | Two rules referenced; one applied more accurately; interpretation adequate. | Only one rule applied or analysis is superficial. | No run chart analysis attempted. | 25 |
| Evidence-Based Intervention (min. 2 Sources) | Intervention clearly described; supported by two peer-reviewed sources within 5 years; connection to run chart findings is explicit. | Intervention described; sources present; connection to run chart partially explicit. | Intervention described without strong evidence base or run chart connection. | No evidence-based intervention described. | 25 |
| Expected Outcome and Measurable Metric | Specific measurable outcome stated; metric clearly defined with a realistic monitoring frequency; demonstrates understanding of QI feedback loops. | Outcome and metric present; monitoring frequency or specificity could be stronger. | Outcome stated without measurable metric or monitoring plan. | No expected outcome described. | 20 |
| APA 7 and Writing Quality | No significant APA errors; 3–4 pages; BSN-level scholarly voice; run chart figure properly labeled per APA. | Minor APA errors; writing quality meets BSN standard. | Several errors; writing below BSN standard. | No APA formatting; major writing concerns. | 10 |
Total Possible: 100 points
Week 6: Quality and Safety Project Presentation and Leadership Reflection
Learning Objectives
- Present an evidence-based Quality and Safety Improvement Project to the preceptor and interprofessional team at the practicum site.
- Synthesize leadership competencies, QI science, and interprofessional collaboration skills developed throughout the course.
- Reflect on personal leadership growth and the social change implications of the practicum project.
- Complete all 72 practicum hours and confirm Meditrek® documentation and preceptor evaluation.
Weekly Schedule
| Due By | Task |
|---|---|
| Week 6, Days 1–3 | Finalize your Quality and Safety Project Presentation. Deliver it to your preceptor and team at the practicum site. |
| Week 6, Day 3 | Post your initial Didactic Discussion response (300–500 words). |
| Week 6, Days 4–5 | Review peer posts. Draft two peer responses. Write your Final Practicum Reflection post. |
| Week 6, Day 6 | Post two peer Didactic Discussion responses. Post your Final Practicum Reflection. |
| Week 6, Day 7 | Submit Assignment 4: Quality and Safety Project Presentation. Confirm Meditrek® hours are fully recorded. |
Didactic Discussion: Leadership Growth and Social Change — A Final Reflection
By Day 3 — Initial Post (300–500 words)
Post a 300- to 500-word response to one of the following options:
Option 1: Reflect on the leadership competency — from your Week 1 self-assessment — that you most intentionally developed or applied during this course. Describe a specific practicum moment where you drew on that competency. Explain what the outcome was and what you would do differently to strengthen your leadership impact in the future. Connect to Walden’s mission of positive social change.
Option 2: Describe how your Quality and Safety Improvement Project has the potential to create positive social change beyond your immediate unit or patient population. Identify one stakeholder group who could benefit from your project findings and explain how you could disseminate results to reach them.
Didactic Discussion Rubric — Week 6
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Fair (2) | Poor (1) | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership Competency Reflection or Social Change Analysis | Specific leadership competency or social change potential described with depth and precision; practicum experience or stakeholder analysis is concrete and authentic. | Competency or social change analysis present and adequate; specificity could be stronger. | Competency or social change mentioned without substantive reflection or analysis. | No reflective or social change content. | 30 |
| Outcome Evaluation or Stakeholder Identification | Outcome or stakeholder clearly described; connection to broader organizational, community, or policy impact is logical. | Outcome or stakeholder identified; broader impact partially articulated. | Outcome or stakeholder mentioned superficially. | No outcome or stakeholder analysis. | 30 |
| Social Change Connection and APA 7 (min. 1 source) | Social change connection is specific and tied to Walden’s mission; one source cited in APA 7. | Connection to social change present; source cited with minor APA errors. | Social change mentioned without clear connection or source absent. | No social change connection or APA citation. | 25 |
| Peer Responses and Writing Quality | Both responses add a specific, forward-looking perspective; BSN-level writing maintained. | Both present; minor gaps. | Thin or only one posted. | Responses absent. | 15 |
Total Possible: 100 points
Practicum Discussion — Week 6: Final Practicum Reflection
- Describe how your completed Quality and Safety Improvement Project addressed the problem you identified in Week 1.
- Identify one outcome or finding that surprised you and explain what it changed about your understanding of quality improvement in nursing.
- Reflect on the preceptor relationship: what was the most valuable thing you learned from collaborating with your preceptor and the interprofessional team?
- Describe one leadership skill you will carry into your future nursing practice as a direct result of this practicum experience.
Assignment 4: Quality and Safety Project Presentation (8–12 Slides + Narration or Speaker Notes)
Deliver this presentation in person (or via synchronous video) to your preceptor and interprofessional team at your practicum site. Then submit the slide deck with detailed speaker notes or narration to course faculty.
- Slide 1 — Title: Project title, student name, practicum site, preceptor name, course, and date.
- Slides 2–3 — Quality and Safety Problem: Describe the problem, its prevalence and impact in your setting, and the affected population. Include baseline data and your run chart.
- Slides 4–5 — Evidence Base: Present the peer-reviewed evidence supporting your intervention. Summarize at least three sources (within last 5 years preferred).
- Slides 6–7 — Improvement Plan: Describe the PDSA cycle design, implementation steps, responsible parties, and timeline.
- Slides 8–9 — Interprofessional Collaboration: Describe how each team member contributed to the project design and how collaboration improved the plan.
- Slide 10 — Outcomes: Present early outcome data if available, or specific measurable expected outcomes with the metric you will track post-intervention.
- Slides 11–12 — Implications, Sustainability, and References: Summarize leadership and organizational implications. Present sustainability recommendations. List all references in APA 7.
Save as: WK6Assgn+LastName+FirstInitial.(extension). Submit by Day 7 of Week 6.
Assignment 4 Rubric — Quality and Safety Project Presentation
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Fair (2) | Poor (1) | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality and Safety Problem (Slides 2–3 + Run Chart) | Problem clearly described with prevalence data; run chart included with correct elements (min. 10 data points, median line); population and clinical context are specific. | Problem described; run chart present but may have a minor missing element; prevalence data partial. | Problem described without run chart or baseline data. | No clear problem description or data display. | 20 |
| Evidence Base (Slides 4–5, min. 3 sources) | Three or more peer-reviewed sources summarized and applied directly to the proposed intervention; evidence is clearly linked to the quality problem. | Three sources present; one or two less directly applied to the intervention. | Fewer than three sources or sources not peer-reviewed. | No evidence base presented. | 20 |
| Improvement Plan — PDSA and Implementation (Slides 6–7) | PDSA cycle clearly designed with all four phases; implementation steps, responsible parties, and timeline all specified; plan is realistic for the practicum setting. | PDSA present; one or two components partially developed. | PDSA mentioned but design is incomplete. | No improvement plan or PDSA design presented. | 20 |
| Interprofessional Collaboration (Slides 8–9) | Each team member’s role clearly described; specific contribution to project design identified; collaboration impact on the plan quality is evident. | Team described; roles identified but contributions partially explained. | Team listed without role description or collaboration analysis. | No interprofessional collaboration described. | 15 |
| Outcomes, Recommendations, and Sustainability (Slides 10–12) | Early outcome data or specific measurable expected outcomes presented; sustainability recommendations are realistic and organizationally grounded. | Outcomes and recommendations present; sustainability partially addressed. | Outcomes described without measurable metrics; no sustainability plan. | No outcomes or recommendations presented. | 15 |
| APA 7 References and Presentation Professionalism | References correctly formatted in APA 7; slides are clean, readable, and professionally designed for a clinical audience; speaker notes are substantive. | Minor APA errors; slides mostly professional; speaker notes adequate. | Several APA errors; slides inconsistent; notes thin. | No APA references; slides unreadable or unprofessional. | 10 |
Total Possible: 100 points
NURS 4220: Leadership Competencies in Nursing and Healthcare
Leadership competency in nursing is not a static trait but a dynamic set of skills that develop through deliberate practice, honest self-assessment, and sustained engagement with quality improvement science. Bashaw and Lounsbury (2012) make a compelling case for why Magnet principles and just culture cannot be treated as separate organizational initiatives, since both depend on nurse leaders who respond to error with curiosity and systemic thinking rather than blame. A run chart built from unit-level fall data can reveal whether preventive interventions have genuinely shifted the process or whether apparent improvements remain within the bounds of normal variation — and knowing the difference prevents premature celebration of results that have not yet materialized (Perla, Provost, & Murray, 2011). Interprofessional collaboration strengthens every quality improvement project, but it requires nurse leaders who can articulate a clinical problem in language that resonates with pharmacists, physicians, respiratory therapists, and social workers simultaneously. Walden’s mission of positive social change reaches its most concrete expression when a BSN-prepared nurse stands before an interprofessional team at a practicum site presentation and shows exactly how an evidence-based, data-driven improvement plan will reduce harm for a defined patient population.
Study Resources (Harvard / APA 7 Format)
- Bashaw, E. S., & Lounsbury, K. (2012). Forging a new culture: Blending Magnet principles with just culture. Nursing Management, 43(10), 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000419492.49675.25
- Perla, R. J., Provost, L. P., & Murray, S. K. (2011). The run chart: A simple analytical tool for learning from variation in healthcare processes. BMJ Quality and Safety, 20(1), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2009.037895
- Mekonnen, M., & Bayissa, Z. (2023). The effect of transformational and transactional leadership styles on organizational readiness for change among health professionals. SAGE Open Nursing, 9, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608231186716
- Samardzic, M., Doekhie, K. D., & Wijngaarden, J. D. H. (2020). Interventions to improve team effectiveness within health care: A systematic review of the past decade. Human Resources for Health, 18(2), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-019-0411-3
- Shen, Q., & Tucker, S. (2024). Fostering leadership development and growth of nurse leaders: Experiences from Midwest Nursing Research Society Leadership Academy. Nursing Outlook, 72(6), 102293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2024.102293