Summative Assessment
You, as the DNP-prepared nurse, must lead a clinical initiative. It is your responsibility to identify key professionals, both in and outside of nursing, who will be members of your healthcare team. Detail the steps you will take to convene the team, develop the plan, initiate the plan, and evaluate the initiative. Include a budget for the clinical initiative as well as a timeline for implementation. The budget must break down the cost for key components of the proposal and the timeline should identify key benchmarks. How will you include all team members as integral parts of the team? What professional experience and qualities must they possess? Describe how you can best leverage each member’s strengths. What are some potential challenges? How will you navigate conflict that may arise due to differences in skills, knowledge, and attitudes? Explain how you would debrief with the team and include recommendations for improvement.
- The assignment should be 8 pages in length, not including the title and reference pages.
- The submission should be in formal style
- A minimum of three academic sources should be used.
Document Type/Template
- Word Document
C4: Summative Assessment Rubric
Criteria Ratings
Writing Mechanics
Sources
APA formatting
Key team members are
MASTERY Only minimal spelling, grammar, and/or punctation errors present (1-2 errors). The overall sentence structure is well developed throughout, and paragraphs are fully developed with consistent style and clear communication.
PROFICIENT Minor spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation errors present, and/or sentence structure lacks minor elements of professional writing, and/or paragraphs are consistently developed. (3-4 errors)
DEVELOPING Minimal spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation errors present, and/or sentence structure lacks elements of professional writing, and/or paragraphs are not consistently developed. (5-7 errors)
EMERGING Multiple spelling grammar and/or punctuation errors present and/or sentence structure does not meet professional writing standards, and/or paragraphs are minimally developed. (more than 7-9 errors)
NOT EVIDENT Significant spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation errors present, and/or sentence structure does not meet professional writing standards, and/or paragraphs are poorly developed. (10 or more errors
MASTERY The use of sources was consistent throughout the document in all areas to support claims and/or statements in the artifact.
PROFICIENT In most areas, sources were consistently used throughout the submission to support claims and/or statements in the artifact.
DEVELOPING Sources were occasionally used to support some claims and/or statements in the artifact, but statements were not consistently supported with sources throughout.
EMERGING Minimal usage of sources present in the artifact, and/or the overall communication lacked appropriate research support.
NOT EVIDENT Sources were not used to support major statements and/or claims, where needed in the artifact
MASTERY Citations, references, and formatting follow APA style guide, with only one or two minor errors.
PROFICIENT Citations, references, and formatting follow APA style guide, with more than 2 errors, but they are minor.
DEVELOPING APA style is demonstrated with some consistency, but the majority of the citation, references, and/or formatting is not correct.
EMERGING Formatting, citations, and/or references, are attempted, but do not follow APA style guidelines consistently.
NOT EVIDENT Formatting, citations, and references are not included, or do not follow appropriate APA style guide.
MASTERY Several key team members are
PROFICIENT Some key team members are
DEVELOPING Few key team members are
EMERGING Few key team members are
NOT EVIDENT No team members and
Criteria Ratings identified and qualifications are discussed
How to utilize team members’ strengths is discussed
Discussion provided about how to navigate conflict and handle challenges
Identify potential expenses associated with the clinical initiative
identified, come from varied backgrounds, and the associated qualifications are provided.
identified but do not demonstrate highly diverse backgrounds. Qualifications are briefly discussed.
identified and are from only 1-2 different professional backgrounds. Qualifications are briefly discussed.
identified and are from only 1-2 different professional backgrounds. No qualifications are included.
associated qualifications are discussed.
MASTERY Strengths of team members are thoroughly discussed and a robust discussion is provided about how to utilize them on the team.
PROFICIENT Strengths of team members are discussed and a good discussion about how to utilize them on the team is provided.
DEVELOPING Minimal discussion is provided about the strengths of team members and a brief discussion about how to utilize them on the team is provided.
EMERGING The strengths of team members is incomplete and a discussion of how to utilize them on the team is missing.
NOT EVIDENT The strengths of team members and how to utilize them on the team are missing.
MASTERY A thorough discussion is provided about how to navigate conflict and handle challenges.
PROFICIENT Discussion about navigating conflict and addressing challenges is well thought out.
DEVELOPING Discussion about navigating conflict and addressing challenges is scant.
EMERGING Discussion is missing either conflict navigation or how to address challenges.
NOT EVIDENT Both conflict navigation and challenges discussion are missing.
MASTERY Budget is thoroughly presented and includes the proposed cost for several key components.
PROFICIENT Budget is moderately detailed and includes the proposed cost for 3-4 key components.
DEVELOPING Budget is moderately detailed and only includes the proposed cost for 1-2 key components.
EMERGING Budget lacks detail and the key components are not addressed.
NOT EVIDENT A budget is missing.
Criteria Ratings
Develop a timeline for implantation of the clinical initiative
Debrief and recommendations for improvement
MASTERY Timeline is achievable and includes several key benchmark dates.
PROFICIENT Timeline is achievable and includes 3-4 benchmark dates.
DEVELOPING Timeline is achievable and includes 1-2 benchmark dates.
EMERGING Timeline is not achievable and is missing benchmark dates.
NOT EVIDENT Both a timeline and benchmark dates are missing.
MASTERY A thorough debriefing process is described and a robust list of recommendations for improvement is included.
PROFICIENT Debriefing process well thought out and includes some recommendations for improvement.
DEVELOPING A scant description of the debriefing process is provided and a minimal number of recommendations for improvement are provided.
EMERGING The debriefing process or the recommendations for improvement are missing.
NOT EVIDENT Both the debriefing process and recommendations for improvement are missing.