Clinical Leadership In Nursing

NUR5325 – Clinical Leadership in Nursing – S2 2019 Dashboard My units NUR5325 S2 2019 Assessment Assessment 1: Assessment Details and Marking Rubric Assignment icon Assessment 1: Assessment Details and Marking Rubric Section break Assessment title: Written Assignment: Clinical leadership Alignment with learning outcome(s): 1 Identify personal clinical leadership goals; 2 Assess clinical leadership readiness and related skill sets of nurses in practice; 4 Construct and critique strategies for clinical development through leadership; 5 Evaluate outcomes of successful leadership; 6 Evaluate clinical development outcomes produced through leadership intervention Details of task: Task: Write an assignment in which you examine three nominated attributes of clinical leadership and consider the application or use of these attributes in a context for clinical leadership in nursing. Details of task: The aim of this assessment task is to a) demonstrate your reading and critical thinking about three (3) attributes of clinical leadership; and b) demonstrate your thinking about the application or use of these attributes in a nursing (or midwifery) context. Students will use the following article as the primary basis for the assignment: Stanley, D., & Stanley, K. (2018). Clinical leadership and nursing explored: A literature search. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(9-10), 1730-1743. Please read this article before commencing your assignment. The written assignment will consist of two parts – Part A (1,200-1,500 words) and Part B (800-1,000 words). Part A of the assignment will provide a discussion of three attributes of clinical leadership. Part B of the assignment will consider how you will use these attributes in your future practice. PART A of the assessment Instructions for Part A of the assignment 1) Obtain a copy of the following article: Stanley, D., & Stanley, K. (2018). Clinical leadership and nursing explored: A literature search. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(9-10), 1730-1743. Read the paper, find Section 8.3 and locate Table 3. In Table 3 the authors offer a summary of the 15 most likely attributes of clinical leaders and the key sources that they used to identify these attributes. 2) For Part A of the assignment we want you to select three (3) of these attributes and write an essay about the attributes and why they are important in clinical leadership. 3) In this part of the essay you will: Introduce the topic and identify the three attributes of clinical leadership that you will discuss. Identify and discuss each attribute, make reference to the cited papers in the Stanley and Stanley paper, draw through the features of the attribute and how and why this attribute is important to clinical leadership. Draw the discussion to a conclusion. PART B of the assessment Instructions for Part B of the assignment 1) For Part B of the assignment we want you to consider how you could apply these three attributes in your future clinical leadership practice. 2) In this part of the essay you will: Briefly re-introduce the three attributes of clinical leadership that you will apply to practice. Write a leadership scenario/context. This could be a future situation/context. Discuss how you would use these three attributes as part of your clinical leadership practice in this situation/context. Explore the likely implications and outcomes that could be gained from using these three attributes in your practice. Draw the discussion to a conclusion. Release date: 29 July 2019 Due date: 5pm Monday 26th August 2019 Word limit: 5pm Monday 26th August 2019 Value: 40% (Hurdle) Presentation requirements: Pages should be numbered in the bottom right corner Student ID number should be in the footer of each page. Submitted assignments must be submitted in WORD format. (If your unit allows PDF or other formats, then include them here. The default is Word). Size 11 or 12 point font should be used. Font style should be Times New Roman, Calibri or Arial Assessments should be presented using double (or 1.5) line spacing All in-text references count in the word count. Reference list is excluded from word count (refer to Word Count Guidelines Policy). Students need to complete the university declaration on submission. You may use subheadings to develop your paper and ensure you address each question. There is no requirement for title page. Estimated return date: Approximately 4 weeks after submission Hurdle requirements: This assessment IS a hurdle requirement Individual assessment in group tasks: Not applicable, this is an individual assessment Criteria for marking: The academic content of the essay (90 marks) Part A (50 Marks) Introduction (5 marks) Discussion of attributes (40 marks – approx. 10-13 marks each attribute) Conclusion (5 marks) Part B (40 marks) Introduction (5 marks) Leadership scenario/context (5 marks) Use of the three attributes in practice (20 marks) Implications and outcomes from using attributes in practice (5 marks) Conclusion (5 marks) Presentation and style (10 marks) Title, structure of the assignment, and clarity of expression – 5 marks Citations and references – 5 marks Click here to view the detailed marking rubric Additional information: The file name of the electronic version of your submitted assessment documents should be constructed as follows:  Assessment 1: Marking Rubric Marking Rubric Assessment 1: Attributes of clinical leadership and their application in a context for clinical leadership in nursing Part A (50 marks) Introduction (5 marks) N=0?2.4 marks Introduction: rambling, unfocused, inadequate or missing. P=2.5?2.9 marks Introduction: patchy standard; too long or too short; some material in introduction belongs in body; key information missing. C=3.0?3.4 marks Introduction: states the topic; defines the scope and context of the paper; appropriate length; introduction clear, defensible, understandable; description meets the requirements. D=3.5?3.9 marks Introduction: topic introduced clearly and very well; scope and context of the paper well defined and well established; appropriate length; clear outline of key features to be addressed in the body of the essay. HD=4.0?5.0 marks Introduction: captures readers’ attention and inviting them to read further; scope and context of the paper defined and strongly argued; very good outline of key features to be addressed in the body of the essay; all requirements met – high standard. Discussion of attributes (40 marks – approx. 10?13 marks each attribute) N=0?19.9 marks Inadequate or incorrect discussion: of each attribute (3) and key features, of how and why each attribute is important to clinical leadership. Inadequate or incorrect use of the relevant and cited papers in the Stanley and Stanley paper. Misjudgement ? length/scope. P=20?23.9 marks Adequate discussion of most of the attributes and key features, of how and why each attribute is important to clinical leadership. Adequate use of the relevant and cited papers in the Stanley and Stanley paper. Appropriate length/scope. C=24.0?27.9 marks Thoughtful, accurate, reading informed, coherent discussion of each attribute (3) and key features, of how and why each attribute is important to clinical leadership. Very good use of the relevant and cited papers in the Stanley and Stanley paper. Appropriate length/scope D=28.0?31.9 marks Skilful discernment from reading and thinking, comprehensive argument/s related to each attribute (3) and key features, of how and why each attribute is important to clinical leadership. Skilful interpretation and use of the relevant and cited papers in the Stanley and Stanley paper. Appropriate length/scope. HD=32.0?40.0 marks Polished, synthesised, articulate, comprehensive argument/s related each attribute (3) and key features, of how and why each attribute is important to clinical leadership. Excellent use of the relevant and cited papers in the Stanley and Stanley paper. Appropriate length/scope. Conclusion (5 marks) N=0?2.4 marks Missing, inaccurate or inadequate: conclusion that gathers up the position and focus of Part A of the essay; summary/synthesis of the key things that have been achieved in Part A of the essay, Does not do justice to what you argued, presented, gained from undertaking the work in Part A. Misjudgement in length. P= 2.5?2.9 marks Not strong, academically clumsy, incomplete but passable: conclusion that gathers up the position and focus of Part A of the essay;summary/synthesis of the key things that have been achieved in Part A of the essay, Attempts to do justice to what you argued, presented, gained from undertaking the work in Part A. Appropriate length. C=3.0?3.4 marks Sound summary, some synthesis of major findings, well constructed: conclusion that gathers up the position and focus of Part A of the essay; summary/synthesis of the key things that have been achieved in Part A of the essay, Achieves reasonable conclusions related to what you argued, presented, gained from undertaking the work in Part A. Appropriate length. D=3.5?3.9 marks conclusion that gathers up the position and focus of Part A of the essay, summary/synthesis of the key things that have been achieved in Part A of the essay, Does very good justice to what you argued, presented, gained from undertaking the work in Part A. Appropriate length. HD=4.0?5.0 marks Polished articulation of major findings, effective summative synthesis, well constructed: conclusion that gathers up the position and focus of Part A of the essay; summary/synthesis of the key things that have been achieved in Part A of the essay, Does excellent justice to what you argued, presented, gained from undertaking the work in Part A. Appropriate length. Part B (40 marks) Introduction (5 marks) N=0?2.4 marks Introduction: rambling, unfocused, inadequate or missing. P=2.5?2.9 marks Introduction: patchy standard; too long or too short; some material in introduction belongs in body; key information missing. C=3.0?3.4 marks Introduction: Introduces Part B of the essay and context of the paper; appropriate length; introduction clear, defensible, understandable; description meets the requirements. D=3.5?3.9 marks Introduction: Part B introduced clearly and very well; scope and context of the paper well defined and well established; appropriate length; clear outline of key features to be addressed in Part B of the essay. HD=4.0?5.0 marks Introduction: captures readers’ attention and inviting them to read further; scope and context of Part B defined and strongly argued; very good outline of key features to be addressed in Part B of the essay; all requirements met – high standard. Leadership scenario/context (5 marks) N=0?2.4 marks Leadership scenario or context: rambling, unfocused, inadequate or missing. P=2.5?2.9 marks Leadership scenario or context: patchy standard; too long or too short; some issues in conveying key aspects of context or scenario. C=3.0?3.4 marks Leadership scenario or context presented clearly and understandable, relevance to topic and paper apparent. D=3.5?3.9 marks Leadership scenario or context presented skilfully, relevance to topic and paper very clear. HD=4.0?5.0 marks Leadership scenario or context presented excellently, relevance to topic and paper very clear. Overall the writing/description of the context and/or scenario is polished and of a very high standard. Use of the three attributes in practice (20 marks) N=0?9.9 marks Inadequate or incorrect discussion of how you would use each attribute while undertaking leadership within the example scenario or context. Misjudgement ? length/scope. P=10.0?11.9 marks Adequate discussion of how you would use each attribute while undertaking leadership within the example scenario or context. Appropriate length C=12.0?13.9 marks Discussion of how you would use each attribute while undertaking leadership within the example scenario or context is thoughtful and reveals insight from the theoretical reading. Appropriate length D=14.0?15.9 marks Discussion of how you would use each attribute while undertaking leadership within the example scenario or context, is professionally insightful and reveals a very good grasp of key principles from the theoretical reading. Appropriate length HD=16.0?20.0 marks Polished discussion of how you would use each attribute while undertaking leadership within the example scenario or context. The applications are professionally insightful, and reveal synthesis from the theoretical reading. Appropriate length Implications and outcomes from using attributes in practice (5 marks) N=0?2.4 marks Missing, inadequate or incorrect identification of the implications and outcomes that you could expect to gain from using the relevant leadership attributes. Misjudgement ? length/scope. P=2.5?2.9 marks Patchy standard; some issues in conveying the implications and outcomes that you could expect to gain from using the relevant leadership attributes. Adequate length/scope. C=3.0?3.4 marks Clear and reasonable coverage of the implications and outcomes that you could expect to gain from using the relevant leadership attributes. Adequate length/scope. D=3.5?3.9 marks Skilful outline and presentation of implications and outcomes that you could expect to gain from using the relevant leadership attributes. Adequate length/scope. HD=4.0?5.0 marks Excellent, well argued presentation of the implications and outcomes that you could expect to gain from using the relevant leadership attributes. Adequate length/scope. Conclusion (5 marks) N=0?2.4 marks Missing, inaccurate or inadequate: conclusion that gathers up the position and focus of Part B of the essay; summary/synthesis of the key things that have been achieved in Part B of the essay, Does not do justice to what you argued, presented, gained from undertaking the work in Part B. Misjudgement in length. P= 2.5?2.9 marks Not strong, academically clumsy, incomplete but passable: conclusion that gathers up the position and focus of Part B of the essay; summary/synthesis of the key things that have been achieved in Part B of the essay, Attempts to do justice to what you argued, presented, gained from undertaking the work in Part B. Appropriate length. C=3.0?3.4 marks Sound summary, some synthesis of major findings, well constructed: conclusion that gathers up the position and focus of Part B of the essay; summary/synthesis of the key things that have been achieved in Part B of the essay, Achieves reasonable conclusions related to what you argued, presented, gained from undertaking the work in Part B. Appropriate length. D=3.5?3.9 marks conclusion that gathers up the position and focus of Part B of the essay; summary/synthesis of the key things that have been achieved in Part B of the essay, Does very good justice to what you argued, presented, gained from undertaking the work in Part B. Appropriate length. HD=4.0?5.0 marks Polished articulation of major findings, effective summative synthesis, well constructed: conclusion that gathers up the position and focus of Part B of the essay;summary/synthesis of the key things that have been achieved in Part B of the essay, Does excellent justice to what you argued, presented, gained from undertaking the work in Part B. Appropriate length. Title, structure of the assignment, and clarity of expression (5 marks) N=0?2.4 marks Title: missing, unclear or inaccurate. Shows an attempt to organise in a logical manner, but structure flawed. Essay has frequent language and presentation errors (eg inappropriate professional academic language and/or unclear meaning and/or grammatical and/or spelling errors). P=2.5?2.9 marks Title: weak. Essay structure demonstrates some organisation and strategy. Passable. Use of appropriate professional and academic language is clumsy or not strong. Essay may have multiple grammatical and presentation errors. C=3?3.4 marks Title: clear & accurate. Essay structure demonstrates achieves good coherence and has reasonable structure. Use of professional academic language is adequate. Essay has some grammatical and presentation errors. D=3.5?3.9 marks Title: clear & accurate. Essay structure demonstrates skilful organisation and achieves sound coherence. Skilful use of professional academic language. Essay may have some grammatical and presentation errors. HD=4.0?5.0 marks Title: clear & accurate. Essay structure demonstrates very good organisation, and achieves strong coherence. Excellent use of professional academic language. Grammatical or presentation errors are rare or very minor. Citations and references ? APA (5 marks) N=0?2.4 marks In?text citation and referencing are incorrect or contain many errors. Little or no evidence of research and reading. Mostly inappropriate or irrelevant sources used. Limited number of sources used. Style is not APA or APA style is not correctly used. P=2.5?2.9 marks In?text citations and referencing attempted but still contains errors. Appropriate sources are used. Evidence of research and reading. APA style is mainly correctly used. C=3?3.4 marks In?text citations and referencing are mainly accurate. Resources within the text are well selected and appropriately used. Appropriate range of sources used. Evidence of reasonable research, and extrapolation from reading. APA style is correctly used. D=3.5?3.9 marks