Professional Communications
Professional Communications is a required aspect to pass this task. Completion of a spell check and grammar check prior to submitting your final work is strongly recommended. You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.
Note: Your submission may take the form of an essay, multimedia presentation, etc. Be sure to cover each prompt in sufficient detail and support no matter what form you use.
- Prepare your reflection essay (suggested length of no more than of 3 pages) of the values and ethics of a public policy issue by doing the following:
- Analyze a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change.
- Discuss why you selected this public policy issue.
Note: If you select a local policy, be sure your discussion reflects how the policy will affect more than a single unit, department, or organization.
- Discuss the relevance of the public policy issue to the health or the nursing profession, using twopieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years.
- Describe the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community.
- Analyze how your values impact your position on the public policy issue.
- Discuss the ethical principle (e.g., autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice) or theory that underpins your perspective.
- Develop a policy brief (suggested length of no more than 6 pages) for the public policy issue discussed in part A in which you do the following:
- Identify the decision maker (name and title) who will receive the policy brief.
- Explain why the public policy issue requires the decision maker’s attention, using relevant nursing research from the last five years to support your position.
- Discuss the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue.
- Discuss the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible.
- Propose a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2.
- Discuss how you will evaluate the success of your policy brief (top-down approach).
- Create a plan (suggested length of no more than 3 pages) for working with an organization or a community to address the public policy issue analyzed in part A by doing the following:
- Identify an organization or community that has expressed interest in your selected health or nursing profession public policy issue.
- Summarize evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.
- Identify threeCBPR principles you could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue.
- Explain how you could approach and collaborate with the organization or community.
- Discuss how the goal of the community or organization aligns with your goal for the selected public policy issue.
- Discuss the action steps that need to be taken to achieve your goal from part C2b.
- Discuss the possible roles/responsibilities of the community or organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-building roles.
- Discuss key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.
- Discuss how you will evaluate the success of your community or organization plan (bottom-up approach).
- Analyze (suggested length of 1 page) the strengths and challenges of the top-down and bottom-up approaches in achieving policy change(s) to support your selected public policy issue by doing the following:
- Discuss the strengths of eachapproach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
- Discuss the challenges of eachapproach to implement change for the selected public policy issue.
- Discuss which approach you would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue.
RUBRIC
ARTICULATION OF RESPONSE (CLARITY, ORGANIZATION, MECHANICS)
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate provides unsatisfactory articulation of response. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides weak articulation of response. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides limited articulation of response. | COMPETENT The candidate provides adequate articulation of response. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides substantial articulation of response. |
A1:PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a plausible analysis of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with no detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with limited detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with adequate detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with substantial detail, of a health or nursing profession public policy issue that impacts a group of people and requires a policy change. |
A1A:ISSUE SELECTION
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of why the public policy issue was selected. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of why the public policy issue was selected. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of why the public policy issue was selected. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of why the public policy issue was selected. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of why the public policy issue was selected. |
A1B:ISSUE RELEVANCE
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years. |
A1C:FINANCIAL IMPACT
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide an accurate description of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides an accurate description, with no detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides an accurate description, with limited detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community. | COMPETENT The candidate provides an accurate description, with adequate detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides an accurate description, with substantial detail, of the financial impact of the public policy on an organization or on a community. |
A2:PERSONAL VALUES
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a plausible analysis of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with no detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with limited detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with adequate detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a plausible analysis, with substantial detail, of how the candidate’s values impact the candidate’s position on the public policy issue. |
A2A:ETHICAL PRINCIPLE OR THEORY
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the ethical principle or theory that underpins the candidate’s perspective. |
B1:DECISION MAKER
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not identify the appropriate decision maker (name and title) who will receive the policy brief. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD Not applicable. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT Not applicable. | COMPETENT Not applicable. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate identifies the appropriate decision maker (name and title) who will receive the policy brief. |
B1A:EXPLANATION
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using no relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using limited relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using adequate relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using substantial relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position. |
B2:CHALLENGES
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the main challenges of addressing the selected public policy issue. |
B3:OPTIONS/INTERVENTIONS
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the primary options and/or interventions for the decision maker, including why they are tangible. |
B4:COURSE OF ACTION
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide an appropriate proposal for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with no support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with limited support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2. | COMPETENT The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with adequate support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides an appropriate proposal, with substantial support, for a persuasive course of action for the decision maker, including ways to avoid the challenges identified in part B2. |
B5:SUCCESS OF POLICY BRIEF
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top-down approach). | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top-down approach). | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top-down approach). | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top-down approach). | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top-down approach). |
C1:IDENTIFIED ORGANIZATION OR COMMUNITY
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not identify an organization or community that has expressed interest in the selected health or nursing profession public policy issue. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD Not applicable | MINIMALLY COMPETENT Not applicable | COMPETENT Not applicable | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate identifies an organization or community that has expressed interest in the selected health or nursing profession public policy issue. |
C1A:SUMMARY OF EXPRESSED INTEREST
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical summary of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical summary, with no detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical summary, with limited detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical summary, with adequate detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical summary, with substantial detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue. |
C2:CBPR PRINCIPLES
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not identify 3 CBPR principles the candidate could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD Not applicable. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate accurately identifies 1-2 CBPR principles the candidate could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue. | COMPETENT Not applicable | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate accurately identifies 3 CBPR principles the candidate could use to work with the organization or community to address a policy change for the public policy issue. |
C2A:APPROACH AND COLLABORATION
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community. |
C2B:GOAL ALIGNMENT
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of how the goal of the community or organization aligns with the candidate’s goal for the selected public policy issue. |
C2C:ACTION STEPS
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the action steps that need to be taken to achieve the candidate’s goal from part C2b. |
C2D:ROLES/RESPONSIBILITIES
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-building roles. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-building roles. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-building roles. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-building roles. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-building roles. |
C2E:KEY ELEMENTS OF EVALUATION PLAN
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles. |
C2F:COMMUNITY/ORGANIZATION PLAN
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom-up approach). | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the success the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom-up approach). | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom-up approach). | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom-up approach). | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of how the success of the community or organization plan will be evaluated (bottom-up approach). |
D1:STRENGTHS OF EACH APPROACH
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected policy issue. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the strengths ofeach approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the strengths of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. |
D2:CHALLENGES OF EACH APPROACH
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the challenges of each approach to implement change for the selected public policy issue. |
D3:MOST EFFECTIVE APPROACH
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. | COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. | HIGHLY COMPETENT The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of which approach the candidate would recommend as the most effective to address the selected public policy issue. |
E:SOURCES
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT When the candidate uses sources, the candidate does not provide in-text citations and references. | DOES NOT MEET STANDARD When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides only some in-text citations and references. | MINIMALLY COMPETENT When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with major deviations from APA style. | COMPETENT When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with minor deviations from APA style. | HIGHLY COMPETENT When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with no readily detectable deviations from APA style, OR the candidate does not use sources. |