Grand Canyon University High Reliability Discussion

 

 

please respond to the following discussion post as a peer making a comment. High reliability is a constant progression or an organizational frame of mind, not a definite structure. HROs are organizations with systems established that are remarkably reliable in achieving their objectives and avoiding potentially detrimental errors. Applying high-reliability models in healthcare settings like hospitals is extremely complex. This transpires over a period of time and encompasses several influences, including overall environmental issues, training and oversight of the workforce, developments for planning, implementing, and evaluating fresh initiatives, and detailed work processes occurring on units. A high-reliability outlook views each of these levels as important and as a foundation of opportunities and threats to attaining optimal patient care. (AHRQ, 2008) A culture change originates at the top with strong, involved, organization-wide leadership that emboldens a culture of safety and pursues continuous improvement by applying a robust and transparent learning system.

Effective leadership is the chief component of an HRO, if a high-reliability attitude does not exist among the individuals running an organization, no set of actions or rules will ever yield high reliability. HROs prosper because their leadership takes charge of the culture, engages staff, endorses a culture of safety, and implants continuous learning and improvement practices into every individual within the organization. An organization with a pre-emptive or multiplicative culture must have effective leadership at all levels, affiliated with the objectives of the organization. (Frankel & Leonard, 2021)

Another vital factor of an HRO is continuous learning. HROs share a unique characteristic when it comes to learning: an evident and transparent learning system. An effective learning system must be concise, focused, and reliable. It must also provide for enhancement and measurement in order to learn and mature. A learning system when well developed and initiated, can have measurable positive outcomes throughout the organization. (Frankel & Leonard, 2021)

REFERENCES

AHRQ. (2008, April). Becoming a High Reliability Organization: Operational Advice for Hospital Leaders. ahrq.gov. Retrieved March 14, 2022, from https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/publications/files/ltcmodule1.pdf

Frankel, A., & Leonard, M. (2021, December 18). High-reliability organizations in Healthcare: Framework. Health Catalyst. Retrieved March 14, 2022, from https://www.healthcatalyst.com/insights/high-reliability-organizations-in-healthcare-framework/

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

 

One or 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 two credible sources.

 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

 

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 one or no credible sources.

 

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 Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses 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.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses 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.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Total Points: 100  

 

"Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us"
Use the following coupon
"FIRST15"

Order Now