Assignment Prompt & Instructions
Having a better understanding of our healthcare’s current focus on health quality improvement is
**files (2)**
– ## ASSIGNMENT1.2.docx
– ## Module1AssIGNMENT_RUBRIC.docx
**## ASSIGNMENT1.2.docx**
**Assignment Description:**
**Indicator Description**
Write a 2000-word essay addressing each of the following points/questions. Be sure to completely answer all the questions for each bullet point. Separate each section in your paper with a clear heading that allows your professor to know which bullet you are addressing in that section of your paper. Support your ideas with at least FOUR (4) sources in your essay. Make sure to reference the citations using the APA writing style for the essay.
**The cover page and reference page do not count towards the minimum word amount. Review the rubric criteria for this assignment.**
Having a better understanding of our healthcare’s current focus on health quality improvement is vital in preparing for your DNP Project. No matter what you elect to focus on for your project, you need to start brainstorming the problems you want to solve. In this week’s assignment, you will analyze the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Quality Indicators.
· Select and share the indicator that resonates with you and impacts your clinical practice.
· Discuss the background of the problem as it relates to your selected indicator.
· Explain why this indicator is worthy of focusing on and describe why this is a problem in your practice.
· Address how this indicator plays a role in the National Quality Strategy.
**Start by reading and following these instructions:**
1. Study the required chapter(s) of the textbook and any additional recommended resources. Some answers may require you to do additional research on the Internet or in other reference sources. Choose your sources carefully.
2. Consider the discussion and the any insights you gained from it.
3. Review the rubric and the specifications below to ensure that your response aligns with all assignment expectations.
4. Create your assignment submission and be sure to cite your sources, use APA style as required, check your spelling, and review the rubric.
**The following specifications are required for this assignment:**
·
**Length:** 2000 words; answers must thoroughly address the questions in a clear, concise manner.
·
**Structure:** Include a title page and reference page in APA style. These do not count toward the minimum word amount for this assignment.
·
**References:** Use the appropriate APA style in-text citations and references for all resources utilized to answer the questions. Include at least FOUR (4) scholarly sources to support your claims.
**Reference:**
Finkelman, A. (2020).
_Quality improvement: A guide for integration in nursing_ (2nd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN: 9781284206531 Look over chapters 1, 2, & 3.
Schmidt, N. A., & Brown, J. M. (2021).
_Evidence-based practice for nurses: Appraisal and application of research_ (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning. IBSN:978-1-274-22632-4. Look over chapters 1, 2, & 3.
**Additional source**
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.).
_About the national quality strategy_.
[https://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/about/nqs-fact-sheets/nqs-fact-sheet-0214.html](https://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/about/nqs-fact-sheets/nqs-fact-sheet-0214.html)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.).
_Quality improvement and monitoring at your fingertips._ [https://qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/](https://qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/)
Federal Drug Administration. (September 2019).
_Institutional review board (IRBs) and protection of human subjects in clinical trials._ Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Protection of Human Subjects in Clinical Trials | FDA.
[https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/institutional-review-boards-irbs-and-protection-human-subjects-clinical-trials](https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/institutional-review-boards-irbs-and-protection-human-subjects-clinical-trials)
Thomas Craig, K.J., McKillop, M.M., . . . Huang, H.T. (2020). U.S. hospital performance methodologies: A scoping review to identify opportunities for crossing the quality chasm.
_BMC Health Services Research,_ 20(640).
[https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05503-z](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05503-z)
Titler, M.G. (2018). Translation research in practice: An introduction.
_OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing,_ 23(2).
[https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol23No02Man01](https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol23No02Man01)
**Instruction**
Scholarly articles
**from**
**2021 to 2026 only. (Within the last five years) Please review your spelling and the rubric.** **Please use North American peer-reviewed journals ONLY.DO NOT use any European Journal.**
**This is my Topic**
“ This quality improvement project is to implement the use of an evidence-based self-care tool, Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA), to improve diabetes self-care behaviors among adults with type 2 diabetes.”
**## Module1AssIGNMENT_RUBRIC.docx**
3/10/26, 6:48 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom
3/10/26, 6:48 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom
Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1
Course: DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Content Weight:
30
%
/ 30
0
points
Topic is inappropri
–
ate to assignment,
inaccurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts, unclear and
difficult to under
–
stand; does not ad
–
dress many assign
–
ment requirements.
Information has
weak or no connec
–
tion to the assign
–
ment topic.
21
points
Topic is mostly cov
–
ered and appropri
–
ate to assignment,
but does not ade
–
quately demonstrate
accurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts; mostly clear
and understandable;
lacks some of the
requirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion and/or provides
little detail;
Information relates
to the main topic,
but few details
and/or examples are
given.
points
24
Topic is covered
completely and ap
–
propriate to assign
–
ment; overview of
key concept dimen
–
sions is evident;
clear and under
–
standable; ad
–
dresses all of the re
–
quirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion, with adequate
attention to detail.
30
points
In-depth coverage
of topic; outstand
–
ing clarity and ex
–
planation of con
–
cepts demonstrated
in information pre
–
sented; approaches
assignment with
depth and breadth,
without redundancy,
using clear and fo
–
cused details.
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Organization<br>Weight: 25% | 0 points<br>Organization is confusing and interferes with reader’s ability to follow ideas.<br>Weak or no introduction of topic or purpose is unclear, weak, or missing. Conclusion lacks a summary of topic, or is missing or irrelevant. | 17.5 points<br>Ideas are sometimes disorganized or irrelevant; Flow is sometimes choppy; somewhat clear organization. Basic introduction that states topic but is presented in an uninteresting way. Conclusion contains basic summary of topic without final concluding ideas, may inappropriately introduces new information. | 20 points<br>Structures ideas in a coherent, organized order that has good flow and an obvious framework.<br>Proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. Conclusion contains good summary of topic with credible concluding ideas and introduces no new information. | 25 points<br>Exceptionally clear, logical, mature, and thorough organization permitting smooth flow of ideas; Introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic in clear, unambiguous terms.<br>Excellent concluding summary with succinct and precise ideas that impact reader. | / 25 |
| Logic/Argument<br>Weight: 15% | 0 points<br>Demonstrates little logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within assignment; Many claims are weak or illogical. | 10.5 points<br>Lacks some logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment; Some claims are weak. | 12 points<br>Uses solid logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | 15 points<br>Provides exemplary logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | / 15 |
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Support Weight:<br>20% | 0 points<br>Lacks support; Uses poor sources for references; Citations lack credibility, relevance, or academic quality or are not current; Does not meet the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>APA format and style are not evident. | 14 points<br>Provides weak support or not enough support; Citations are not consistently credible, current, relevant or academic; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description Missing APA elements; in-text citations, where necessary, are used but formatted inaccurately and not referenced. | 16 points<br>Provides sufficient support with credible, current, relevant academic citations; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description. ; In-text citations and a reference page are present with few format errors. Mechanics of writing are reflective of APA style. | 20 points<br>Provides very strong support from credible, current, relevant, academic citations; Meets or exceeds the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>Accurate citations and references are presented. No APA errors are evident. | / 20 |
Total
/ 100
Quality of
Written
Communication
Weight: 10%
/ 10
0
points
Style and voice inap
–
propriate or do not
address given audi
–
ence, purpose, etc.
Word choice is ex
–
cessively redundant,
clichéd, and unspe
–
cific. Inconsistent
grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and
paragraphing.
Surface errors are
pervasive enough
that they impede
communication of
meaning.
points
7
Style and voice are
somewhat appropri
–
ate to given audi
–
ence and purpose.
Word choice is of
–
ten unspecific,
generic, redundant,
and clichéd.
Repetitive mechani
–
cal errors distract
the reader.
Inconsistencies in
language, sentence
structure, and/or
word choice are
present.
8
points
Style and voice are
appropriate to the
given audience and
purpose. Word
choice is specific
and purposeful, and
somewhat varied
throughout. Minimal
mechanical or typo
–
graphical errors are
present, but are not
overly distracting to
the reader. Correct
sentence structure
and audience-appro
–
priate language are
used.
points
10
Style and voice are
not only appropriate
to the given audi
–
ence and purpose,
but also show origi
–
nality and creativity.
Word choice is spe
–
cific, purposeful, dy
–
namic and varied.
Free of mechanical
and typographical
errors. A variety of
sentence structures
and effective figures
of speech are used.
Writer is clearly in
command of stan
–
dard, written, aca
–
demic English.
3/10/26, 6:48 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269447/View 1/5
1/5
**Overall Score**
**Level 1**
0
points minimum
**Level 2**
70
points minimum
**Level 3**
80
points minimum
**Level 4**
100
points minimum
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269447/View 1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269447/View 1/5
1/5
**## Module1AssIGNMENT_RUBRIC.docx**
3/10/26, 6:48 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom
3/10/26, 6:48 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom
Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1
Course: DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Content Weight:
30
%
/ 30
0
points
Topic is inappropri
–
ate to assignment,
inaccurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts, unclear and
difficult to under
–
stand; does not ad
–
dress many assign
–
ment requirements.
Information has
weak or no connec
–
tion to the assign
–
ment topic.
21
points
Topic is mostly cov
–
ered and appropri
–
ate to assignment,
but does not ade
–
quately demonstrate
accurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts; mostly clear
and understandable;
lacks some of the
requirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion and/or provides
little detail;
Information relates
to the main topic,
but few details
and/or examples are
given.
points
24
Topic is covered
completely and ap
–
propriate to assign
–
ment; overview of
key concept dimen
–
sions is evident;
clear and under
–
standable; ad
–
dresses all of the re
–
quirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion, with adequate
attention to detail.
30
points
In-depth coverage
of topic; outstand
–
ing clarity and ex
–
planation of con
–
cepts demonstrated
in information pre
–
sented; approaches
assignment with
depth and breadth,
without redundancy,
using clear and fo
–
cused details.
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Organization<br>Weight: 25% | 0 points<br>Organization is confusing and interferes with reader’s ability to follow ideas.<br>Weak or no introduction of topic or purpose is unclear, weak, or missing. Conclusion lacks a summary of topic, or is missing or irrelevant. | 17.5 points<br>Ideas are sometimes disorganized or irrelevant; Flow is sometimes choppy; somewhat clear organization. Basic introduction that states topic but is presented in an uninteresting way. Conclusion contains basic summary of topic without final concluding ideas, may inappropriately introduces new information. | 20 points<br>Structures ideas in a coherent, organized order that has good flow and an obvious framework.<br>Proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. Conclusion contains good summary of topic with credible concluding ideas and introduces no new information. | 25 points<br>Exceptionally clear, logical, mature, and thorough organization permitting smooth flow of ideas; Introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic in clear, unambiguous terms.<br>Excellent concluding summary with succinct and precise ideas that impact reader. | / 25 |
| Logic/Argument<br>Weight: 15% | 0 points<br>Demonstrates little logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within assignment; Many claims are weak or illogical. | 10.5 points<br>Lacks some logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment; Some claims are weak. | 12 points<br>Uses solid logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | 15 points<br>Provides exemplary logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | / 15 |
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Support Weight:<br>20% | 0 points<br>Lacks support; Uses poor sources for references; Citations lack credibility, relevance, or academic quality or are not current; Does not meet the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>APA format and style are not evident. | 14 points<br>Provides weak support or not enough support; Citations are not consistently credible, current, relevant or academic; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description Missing APA elements; in-text citations, where necessary, are used but formatted inaccurately and not referenced. | 16 points<br>Provides sufficient support with credible, current, relevant academic citations; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description. ; In-text citations and a reference page are present with few format errors. Mechanics of writing are reflective of APA style. | 20 points<br>Provides very strong support from credible, current, relevant, academic citations; Meets or exceeds the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>Accurate citations and references are presented. No APA errors are evident. | / 20 |
Total
/ 100
Quality of
Written
Communication
Weight: 10%
/ 10
0
points
Style and voice inap
–
propriate or do not
address given audi
–
ence, purpose, etc.
Word choice is ex
–
cessively redundant,
clichéd, and unspe
–
cific. Inconsistent
grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and
paragraphing.
Surface errors are
pervasive enough
that they impede
communication of
meaning.
points
7
Style and voice are
somewhat appropri
–
ate to given audi
–
ence and purpose.
Word choice is of
–
ten unspecific,
generic, redundant,
and clichéd.
Repetitive mechani
–
cal errors distract
the reader.
Inconsistencies in
language, sentence
structure, and/or
word choice are
present.
8
points
Style and voice are
appropriate to the
given audience and
purpose. Word
choice is specific
and purposeful, and
somewhat varied
throughout. Minimal
mechanical or typo
–
graphical errors are
present, but are not
overly distracting to
the reader. Correct
sentence structure
and audience-appro
–
priate language are
used.
points
10
Style and voice are
not only appropriate
to the given audi
–
ence and purpose,
but also show origi
–
nality and creativity.
Word choice is spe
–
cific, purposeful, dy
–
namic and varied.
Free of mechanical
and typographical
errors. A variety of
sentence structures
and effective figures
of speech are used.
Writer is clearly in
command of stan
–
dard, written, aca
–
demic English.
3/10/26, 6:48 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269447/View 1/5
1/5
**Overall Score**
**Level 1**
0
points minimum
**Level 2**
70
points minimum
**Level 3**
80
points minimum
**Level 4**
100
points minimum
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269447/View 1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269447/View 1/5
1/5
**## ASSIGNMENT1.2.docx**
**Assignment Description:**
**Indicator Description**
Write a 2000-word essay addressing each of the following points/questions. Be sure to completely answer all the questions for each bullet point. Separate each section in your paper with a clear heading that allows your professor to know which bullet you are addressing in that section of your paper. Support your ideas with at least FOUR (4) sources in your essay. Make sure to reference the citations using the APA writing style for the essay.
**The cover page and reference page do not count towards the minimum word amount. Review the rubric criteria for this assignment.**
Having a better understanding of our healthcare’s current focus on health quality improvement is vital in preparing for your DNP Project. No matter what you elect to focus on for your project, you need to start brainstorming the problems you want to solve. In this week’s assignment, you will analyze the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Quality Indicators.
· Select and share the indicator that resonates with you and impacts your clinical practice.
· Discuss the background of the problem as it relates to your selected indicator.
· Explain why this indicator is worthy of focusing on and describe why this is a problem in your practice.
· Address how this indicator plays a role in the National Quality Strategy.
**Start by reading and following these instructions:**
1. Study the required chapter(s) of the textbook and any additional recommended resources. Some answers may require you to do additional research on the Internet or in other reference sources. Choose your sources carefully.
2. Consider the discussion and the any insights you gained from it.
3. Review the rubric and the specifications below to ensure that your response aligns with all assignment expectations.
4. Create your assignment submission and be sure to cite your sources, use APA style as required, check your spelling, and review the rubric.
**The following specifications are required for this assignment:**
·
**Length:** 2000 words; answers must thoroughly address the questions in a clear, concise manner.
·
**Structure:** Include a title page and reference page in APA style. These do not count toward the minimum word amount for this assignment.
·
**References:** Use the appropriate APA style in-text citations and references for all resources utilized to answer the questions. Include at least FOUR (4) scholarly sources to support your claims.
**Reference:**
Finkelman, A. (2020).
_Quality improvement: A guide for integration in nursing_ (2nd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN: 9781284206531 Look over chapters 1, 2, & 3.
Schmidt, N. A., & Brown, J. M. (2021).
_Evidence-based practice for nurses: Appraisal and application of research_ (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning. IBSN:978-1-274-22632-4. Look over chapters 1, 2, & 3.
**Additional source**
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.).
_About the national quality strategy_.
[https://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/about/nqs-fact-sheets/nqs-fact-sheet-0214.html](https://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/about/nqs-fact-sheets/nqs-fact-sheet-0214.html)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.).
_Quality improvement and monitoring at your fingertips._ [https://qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/](https://qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/)
Federal Drug Administration. (September 2019).
_Institutional review board (IRBs) and protection of human subjects in clinical trials._ Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Protection of Human Subjects in Clinical Trials | FDA.
[https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/institutional-review-boards-irbs-and-protection-human-subjects-clinical-trials](https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/institutional-review-boards-irbs-and-protection-human-subjects-clinical-trials)
Thomas Craig, K.J., McKillop, M.M., . . . Huang, H.T. (2020). U.S. hospital performance methodologies: A scoping review to identify opportunities for crossing the quality chasm.
_BMC Health Services Research,_ 20(640).
[https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05503-z](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05503-z)
Titler, M.G. (2018). Translation research in practice: An introduction.
_OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing,_ 23(2).
[https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol23No02Man01](https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol23No02Man01)
**Instruction**
Scholarly articles
**from**
**2021 to 2026 only. (Within the last five years) Please review your spelling and the rubric.** **Please use North American peer-reviewed journals ONLY.DO NOT use any European Journal.**
**This is my Topic**
“ This quality improvement project is to implement the use of an evidence-based self-care tool, Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA), to improve diabetes self-care behaviors among adults with type 2 diabetes.”
**## Module1AssIGNMENT_RUBRIC.docx**
3/10/26, 6:48 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom
3/10/26, 6:48 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom
Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1
Course: DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Content Weight:
30
%
/ 30
0
points
Topic is inappropri
–
ate to assignment,
inaccurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts, unclear and
difficult to under
–
stand; does not ad
–
dress many assign
–
ment requirements.
Information has
weak or no connec
–
tion to the assign
–
ment topic.
21
points
Topic is mostly cov
–
ered and appropri
–
ate to assignment,
but does not ade
–
quately demonstrate
accurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts; mostly clear
and understandable;
lacks some of the
requirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion and/or provides
little detail;
Information relates
to the main topic,
but few details
and/or examples are
given.
points
24
Topic is covered
completely and ap
–
propriate to assign
–
ment; overview of
key concept dimen
–
sions is evident;
clear and under
–
standable; ad
–
dresses all of the re
–
quirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion, with adequate
attention to detail.
30
points
In-depth coverage
of topic; outstand
–
ing clarity and ex
–
planation of con
–
cepts demonstrated
in information pre
–
sented; approaches
assignment with
depth and breadth,
without redundancy,
using clear and fo
–
cused details.
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Organization<br>Weight: 25% | 0 points<br>Organization is confusing and interferes with reader’s ability to follow ideas.<br>Weak or no introduction of topic or purpose is unclear, weak, or missing. Conclusion lacks a summary of topic, or is missing or irrelevant. | 17.5 points<br>Ideas are sometimes disorganized or irrelevant; Flow is sometimes choppy; somewhat clear organization. Basic introduction that states topic but is presented in an uninteresting way. Conclusion contains basic summary of topic without final concluding ideas, may inappropriately introduces new information. | 20 points<br>Structures ideas in a coherent, organized order that has good flow and an obvious framework.<br>Proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. Conclusion contains good summary of topic with credible concluding ideas and introduces no new information. | 25 points<br>Exceptionally clear, logical, mature, and thorough organization permitting smooth flow of ideas; Introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic in clear, unambiguous terms.<br>Excellent concluding summary with succinct and precise ideas that impact reader. | / 25 |
| Logic/Argument<br>Weight: 15% | 0 points<br>Demonstrates little logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within assignment; Many claims are weak or illogical. | 10.5 points<br>Lacks some logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment; Some claims are weak. | 12 points<br>Uses solid logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | 15 points<br>Provides exemplary logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | / 15 |
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Support Weight:<br>20% | 0 points<br>Lacks support; Uses poor sources for references; Citations lack credibility, relevance, or academic quality or are not current; Does not meet the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>APA format and style are not evident. | 14 points<br>Provides weak support or not enough support; Citations are not consistently credible, current, relevant or academic; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description Missing APA elements; in-text citations, where necessary, are used but formatted inaccurately and not referenced. | 16 points<br>Provides sufficient support with credible, current, relevant academic citations; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description. ; In-text citations and a reference page are present with few format errors. Mechanics of writing are reflective of APA style. | 20 points<br>Provides very strong support from credible, current, relevant, academic citations; Meets or exceeds the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>Accurate citations and references are presented. No APA errors are evident. | / 20 |
Total
/ 100
Quality of
Written
Communication
Weight: 10%
/ 10
0
points
Style and voice inap
–
propriate or do not
address given audi
–
ence, purpose, etc.
Word choice is ex
–
cessively redundant,
clichéd, and unspe
–
cific. Inconsistent
grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and
paragraphing.
Surface errors are
pervasive enough
that they impede
communication of
meaning.
points
7
Style and voice are
somewhat appropri
–
ate to given audi
–
ence and purpose.
Word choice is of
–
ten unspecific,
generic, redundant,
and clichéd.
Repetitive mechani
–
cal errors distract
the reader.
Inconsistencies in
language, sentence
structure, and/or
word choice are
present.
8
points
Style and voice are
appropriate to the
given audience and
purpose. Word
choice is specific
and purposeful, and
somewhat varied
throughout. Minimal
mechanical or typo
–
graphical errors are
present, but are not
overly distracting to
the reader. Correct
sentence structure
and audience-appro
–
priate language are
used.
points
10
Style and voice are
not only appropriate
to the given audi
–
ence and purpose,
but also show origi
–
nality and creativity.
Word choice is spe
–
cific, purposeful, dy
–
namic and varied.
Free of mechanical
and typographical
errors. A variety of
sentence structures
and effective figures
of speech are used.
Writer is clearly in
command of stan
–
dard, written, aca
–
demic English.
3/10/26, 6:48 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269447/View 1/5
1/5
**Overall Score**
**Level 1**
0
points minimum
**Level 2**
70
points minimum
**Level 3**
80
points minimum
**Level 4**
100
points minimum
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269447/View 1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269447/View 1/5
1/5
**## ASSIGNMENT1.2.docx**
**Assignment Description:**
**Indicator Description**
Write a 2000-word essay addressing each of the following points/questions. Be sure to completely answer all the questions for each bullet point. Separate each section in your paper with a clear heading that allows your professor to know which bullet you are addressing in that section of your paper. Support your ideas with at least FOUR (4) sources in your essay. Make sure to reference the citations using the APA writing style for the essay.
**The cover page and reference page do not count towards the minimum word amount. Review the rubric criteria for this assignment.**
Having a better understanding of our healthcare’s current focus on health quality improvement is vital in preparing for your DNP Project. No matter what you elect to focus on for your project, you need to start brainstorming the problems you want to solve. In this week’s assignment, you will analyze the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Quality Indicators.
· Select and share the indicator that resonates with you and impacts your clinical practice.
· Discuss the background of the problem as it relates to your selected indicator.
· Explain why this indicator is worthy of focusing on and describe why this is a problem in your practice.
· Address how this indicator plays a role in the National Quality Strategy.
**Start by reading and following these instructions:**
1. Study the required chapter(s) of the textbook and any additional recommended resources. Some answers may require you to do additional research on the Internet or in other reference sources. Choose your sources carefully.
2. Consider the discussion and the any insights you gained from it.
3. Review the rubric and the specifications below to ensure that your response aligns with all assignment expectations.
4. Create your assignment submission and be sure to cite your sources, use APA style as required, check your spelling, and review the rubric.
**The following specifications are required for this assignment:**
·
**Length:** 2000 words; answers must thoroughly address the questions in a clear, concise manner.
·
**Structure:** Include a title page and reference page in APA style. These do not count toward the minimum word amount for this assignment.
·
**References:** Use the appropriate APA style in-text citations and references for all resources utilized to answer the questions. Include at least FOUR (4) scholarly sources to support your claims.
**Reference:**
Finkelman, A. (2020).
_Quality improvement: A guide for integration in nursing_ (2nd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN: 9781284206531 Look over chapters 1, 2, & 3.
Schmidt, N. A., & Brown, J. M. (2021).
_Evidence-based practice for nurses: Appraisal and application of research_ (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning. IBSN:978-1-274-22632-4. Look over chapters 1, 2, & 3.
**Additional source**
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.).
_About the national quality strategy_.
[https://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/about/nqs-fact-sheets/nqs-fact-sheet-0214.html](https://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/about/nqs-fact-sheets/nqs-fact-sheet-0214.html)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.).
_Quality improvement and monitoring at your fingertips._ [https://qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/](https://qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/)
Federal Drug Administration. (September 2019).
_Institutional review board (IRBs) and protection of human subjects in clinical trials._ Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Protection of Human Subjects in Clinical Trials | FDA.
[https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/institutional-review-boards-irbs-and-protection-human-subjects-clinical-trials](https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/institutional-review-boards-irbs-and-protection-human-subjects-clinical-trials)
Thomas Craig, K.J., McKillop, M.M., . . . Huang, H.T. (2020). U.S. hospital performance methodologies: A scoping review to identify opportunities for crossing the quality chasm.
_BMC Health Services Research,_ 20(640).
[https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05503-z](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05503-z)
Titler, M.G. (2018). Translation research in practice: An introduction.
_OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing,_ 23(2).
[https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol23No02Man01](https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol23No02Man01)
**Instruction**
Scholarly articles
**from**
**2021 to 2026 only. (Within the last five years) Please review your spelling and the rubric.** **Please use North American peer-reviewed journals ONLY.DO NOT use any European Journal.**
**This is my Topic**
“ This quality improvement project is to implement the use of an evidence-based self-care tool, Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA), to improve diabetes self-care behaviors among adults with type 2 diabetes.”
**## Module1AssIGNMENT_RUBRIC.docx**
3/10/26, 6:48 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom
3/10/26, 6:48 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom
Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1
Course: DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Content Weight:
30
%
/ 30
0
points
Topic is inappropri
–
ate to assignment,
inaccurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts, unclear and
difficult to under
–
stand; does not ad
–
dress many assign
–
ment requirements.
Information has
weak or no connec
–
tion to the assign
–
ment topic.
21
points
Topic is mostly cov
–
ered and appropri
–
ate to assignment,
but does not ade
–
quately demonstrate
accurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts; mostly clear
and understandable;
lacks some of the
requirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion and/or provides
little detail;
Information relates
to the main topic,
but few details
and/or examples are
given.
points
24
Topic is covered
completely and ap
–
propriate to assign
–
ment; overview of
key concept dimen
–
sions is evident;
clear and under
–
standable; ad
–
dresses all of the re
–
quirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion, with adequate
attention to detail.
30
points
In-depth coverage
of topic; outstand
–
ing clarity and ex
–
planation of con
–
cepts demonstrated
in information pre
–
sented; approaches
assignment with
depth and breadth,
without redundancy,
using clear and fo
–
cused details.
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Organization<br>Weight: 25% | 0 points<br>Organization is confusing and interferes with reader’s ability to follow ideas.<br>Weak or no introduction of topic or purpose is unclear, weak, or missing. Conclusion lacks a summary of topic, or is missing or irrelevant. | 17.5 points<br>Ideas are sometimes disorganized or irrelevant; Flow is sometimes choppy; somewhat clear organization. Basic introduction that states topic but is presented in an uninteresting way. Conclusion contains basic summary of topic without final concluding ideas, may inappropriately introduces new information. | 20 points<br>Structures ideas in a coherent, organized order that has good flow and an obvious framework.<br>Proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. Conclusion contains good summary of topic with credible concluding ideas and introduces no new information. | 25 points<br>Exceptionally clear, logical, mature, and thorough organization permitting smooth flow of ideas; Introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic in clear, unambiguous terms.<br>Excellent concluding summary with succinct and precise ideas that impact reader. | / 25 |
| Logic/Argument<br>Weight: 15% | 0 points<br>Demonstrates little logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within assignment; Many claims are weak or illogical. | 10.5 points<br>Lacks some logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment; Some claims are weak. | 12 points<br>Uses solid logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | 15 points<br>Provides exemplary logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | / 15 |
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Support Weight:<br>20% | 0 points<br>Lacks support; Uses poor sources for references; Citations lack credibility, relevance, or academic quality or are not current; Does not meet the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>APA format and style are not evident. | 14 points<br>Provides weak support or not enough support; Citations are not consistently credible, current, relevant or academic; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description Missing APA elements; in-text citations, where necessary, are used but formatted inaccurately and not referenced. | 16 points<br>Provides sufficient support with credible, current, relevant academic citations; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description. ; In-text citations and a reference page are present with few format errors. Mechanics of writing are reflective of APA style. | 20 points<br>Provides very strong support from credible, current, relevant, academic citations; Meets or exceeds the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>Accurate citations and references are presented. No APA errors are evident. | / 20 |
Total
/ 100
Quality of
Written
Communication
Weight: 10%
/ 10
0
points
Style and voice inap
–
propriate or do not
address given audi
–
ence, purpose, etc.
Word choice is ex
–
cessively redundant,
clichéd, and unspe
–
cific. Inconsistent
grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and
paragraphing.
Surface errors are
pervasive enough
that they impede
communication of
meaning.
points
7
Style and voice are
somewhat appropri
–
ate to given audi
–
ence and purpose.
Word choice is of
–
ten unspecific,
generic, redundant,
and clichéd.
Repetitive mechani
–
cal errors distract
the reader.
Inconsistencies in
language, sentence
structure, and/or
word choice are
present.
8
points
Style and voice are
appropriate to the
given audience and
purpose. Word
choice is specific
and purposeful, and
somewhat varied
throughout. Minimal
mechanical or typo
–
graphical errors are
present, but are not
overly distracting to
the reader. Correct
sentence structure
and audience-appro
–
priate language are
used.
points
10
Style and voice are
not only appropriate
to the given audi
–
ence and purpose,
but also show origi
–
nality and creativity.
Word choice is spe
–
cific, purposeful, dy
–
namic and varied.
Free of mechanical
and typographical
errors. A variety of
sentence structures
and effective figures
of speech are used.
Writer is clearly in
command of stan
–
dard, written, aca
–
demic English.
3/10/26, 6:48 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269447/View 1/5
1/5
**Overall Score**
**Level 1**
0
points minimum
**Level 2**
70
points minimum
**Level 3**
80
points minimum
**Level 4**
100
points minimum
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269447/View 1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269447/View 1/5
1/5