NURS 6053 Discussion: Review the Current Healthcare Issues

NURS 6053 Discussion: Review the Current Healthcare Issues

NURS 6053 Discussion: Review the Current Healthcare Issues

 

If you were to ask 10 people what they believe to be the most significant issue facing healthcare today, you might get 10 different answers. Escalating costs? Regulation? Technology disruption?

These and many other topics are worthy of discussion. Not surprisingly, much has been said in the research, within the profession, and in the news about these topics. Whether they are issues of finance, quality, workload, or outcomes, there is no shortage of changes to be addressed.

In this Discussion, you examine a national healthcare issue and consider how that issue may impact your work setting. You also analyze how your organization has responded to this issue.

To Prepare:

  • Review the Resources and select one current national healthcare issue/stressor to focus on.
  • Reflect on the current national healthcare issue/stressor you selected and think about how this issue/stressor may be addressed in your work setting.

By Day 3 of Week 1

Post a description of the national healthcare issue/stressor you selected for analysis, and explain how the healthcare issue/stressor may impact your work setting. Then, describe how your health system work setting has responded to the healthcare issue/stressor, including a description of what changes may have been implemented. Be specific and provide examples.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6053 Discussion: Review the Current Healthcare Issues

 

By Day 6 of Week 1

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days who chose a different national healthcare issue/stressor than you selected. Explain how their chosen national healthcare issue/stressor may also impact your work setting and what (if anything) is being done to address the national healthcare issue/stressor.

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

 

To access your rubric:

Week 1 Discussion Rubric

 

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 1

 

To participate in this Discussion:

 

Week 1 Discussion

RE: Discussion – Week 1

            The nursing shortage in the country has made headlines for the past test years and worsens daily. Registered nurses (RNs) constitute the largest group of healthcare professionals in the United States and adequate nurse staffing has been linked to measures of patient and nurse satisfaction and the quality of care provided to patients.

According to the Germack et al.(2017)Nursing employment  Projection, 2019 through to 2029, Registered Nursing (RN) is among the top job growth occupations through 2029. The RN workforce is expected to grow from 3 million in 2019 to 3.3 million in 2029, an increase of 221,900 or 7%. The Bureau also projects 175,900 openings for RNs each year through 2029 when nurse retirements and workforce exits are factored into the number of nurses needed in the U.S. The onset of the worldwide covid-19 pandemic has sped up the prediction, leading to a drastic shortage of nurses all over the country.

The nursing shortage has impacted my workplace tremendously. To the institution itself, the nursing shortage has led to the closure of 3 units as there were no nurses to keep the unit open and running. The shortage has also impacted the institution economically as the hospital is made to spend so much on hiring travel nurses, affecting its viability as it is a not-for-profit organization (Everhart et.,2013).

According to Chen et al. (2019), increased nurses’ workload leads to gross dissatisfaction, burnout, poor-quality patient care, and nursing turnover.  The nursing staff shortage has led to an increased workload in my workplace, causing strain on the remaining nursing staff. Increased stress on the nurses led to burnout and job dissatisfaction and subsequently increased nurses’ turnover in my workplace, which compounded the problem. The nursing staff shortage also led to mandatory overtime, leading to many nurses leaving the hospital, making the situation worse.

To the patient, the shortage of nursing staff impacted the quality of care rendered to the patient. It reduced the time nurses spend with their patients due to the increased patient-to-nurse ratio. Increased workload on the nurses have been implicated in leading to increased medication error and omission of care, and poor patient outcomes ( Fagerström et al.,2018)

Employing and retaining nursing staff in the face of the national nursing shortage is challenging because the demand for nurses is way higher than the nation supply (Pope, 2020). To mitigate the nursing shortage at my workplace, the management introduced a substantial employment bonus to attract nurses. The management also offers bonuses to nurses based on the number of years they are working with the facility. Each year a nurse spends on the facility attracts a bonus. Due to the extent of the shortage of nursing staff, the management has to introduce mandatory overtime to ensure adequate staffing though this seems to be counter-productive as it is one of the major reasons for increased nursing turnover in my workplace. To compensate for the nursing shortage, the management is employing travel nurses, but due to the financial strain it is having on the hospital, they could not sustain it (Everhart et.,2013).

References

Chen, Y. C., Guo, Y. L., Chin, W. S., Cheng, N. Y., Ho, J. J., & Shiao, J. S. (2019). Patient-        Nurse Ratio is Related to Nurses’ Intention to Leave Their Job through Mediating Factors of Burnout and Job Dissatisfaction. International journal of environmental research and            public health16(23), 4801. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234801

Everhart, D., Neff, D., Al-Amin, M., Nogle, J., & Weech-Maldonado, R. (2013). The effects of   nurse staffing on hospital financial performance: competitive versus less competitive markets. Health care management review38(2), 146–155.         https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e318257292b

Fagerström, L., Kinnunen, M., & Saarela, J. (2018). Nursing workload, patient safety incidents     and mortality: an observational study from Finland. BMJ open8(4), e016367.           https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016367

Germack, H. D., McHugh, M. D., Sloane, D. M., & Aiken, L. H. (2017). U.S. Hospital     Employment of Foreign-Educated Nurses and Patient Experience: A Cross-Sectional            Study. Journal of nursing regulation8(3), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2155-     8256(17)30158-8

Pope, K. (2020). A look at current challenges in healthcare staffing. Retrieved February 28, 2021, from https://www.focusonesolutions.com/blog/a-look-at-the-current-challenges-in-healthcare-staffing/

NURS_6053_Module01_Week01_Discussion_Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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
Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100