patient • healthcare organization • nursing staff • group dynamic4 H e a l t h M e d i c a l

patient • healthcare organization • nursing staff • group dynamic4 H e a l t h M e d i c a l

A. Summarize (suggested length of 1/2–1 page) evidence-based practice, relevant national standards, or current literature to support the need for interdisciplinary teams.

B. Summarize (suggested length of 1–2 pages) your initial meeting with the nurse manager and your experiences during the three different interdisciplinary team meetings you attended as either an observer and/or an active participant.

C. Discuss the roles of three interdisciplinary team members who participated in the interdisciplinary team meetings you attended.

1. Explain how nurses play an important role in interdisciplinary team interactions.

D. Evaluate your interdisciplinary team interactions by doing the following:

1. Discuss how effective the leadership was during the team meetings, based on your observations.

2. Discuss two goals from any of the interdisciplinary teams you observed.

a. Discuss how you participated or could have participated in achieving the goal(s) of one of the teams.

3. Discuss the benefits of having a cohesive interdisciplinary team, based on your observations, for the following:

• client or patient

• healthcare organization

• nursing staff

• group dynamic

4. Assess the group dynamic for one interdisciplinary team you observed or participated with, including the effectiveness of the group.

a. Discuss the method you used to evaluate the group dynamic.

b. Discuss whether any personal or professional conflicts arose during the team interactions.

E. Identify two
potential issues that may arise in the future within any of the
interdisciplinary teams, based on your evaluation of the groups’
dynamics.

1. Compare two methods for dealing with difficult group dynamics (e.g., negotiation, conflict management).

a. Discuss how you could implement one of these methods.

b. Discuss how individual members of the interdisciplinary team could affect the function or dysfunction of the group.

2. Discuss two factors that could make it difficult for change to occur in your clinical setting, based on the meetings you observed.

a. Discuss why nurses, as leaders, are instrumental for leading change.

F. Discuss how the meeting outcomes for any one of the interdisciplinary teams were communicated throughout the practice setting.

1. Discuss whether the interdisciplinary team’s recommendations and action items were implemented.

G.
Reflect on how your observations or participation in the
interdisciplinary meetings shaped your views about the role of the nurse
in an interdisciplinary team.

1. Discuss your observations of nursing leadership in action.

2. Discuss how you, as a nurse, could function as a leader in your clinical setting.

H.
Acknowledge sources, using APA-formatted in-text citations and
references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

I. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

File Restrictions

File name may contain only letters, numbers, spaces, and these symbols: ! – _ . * ‘ ( )
File size limit: 200 MB
File
types allowed: doc, docx, rtf, xls, xlsx, ppt, pptx, odt, pdf, txt, qt,
mov, mpg, avi, mp3, wav, mp4, wma, flv, asf, mpeg, wmv, m4v, svg, tif,
tiff, jpeg, jpg, gif, png, zip, rar, tar, 7z

Rubric


A:Need for Interdisciplinary Teams

Not Evident

A summary of the need for interdisciplinary teams is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
summary addresses the need for interdisciplinary teams, but the summary
is not supported with evidence-based practice, relevant national
standards, or current literature. Or the summary is poorly reasoned.

Competent

The
summary addresses the need for interdisciplinary teams and is supported
with evidence-based practice, relevant national standards, or current
literature. The summary is well reasoned.

B:Summary of Meeting and Experiences

Not Evident

A summary of the initial meeting with the nurse manager and experiences during interdisciplinary team meetings is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
summary is missing the initial meeting with the nurse manager, or the
summary does not include experiences as an observer or an active
participant during 3 different interdisciplinary team meetings. Or the
summary is missing key details about the meeting or experiences.

Competent

The
summary includes both the initial meeting with the nurse manager and
experiences as an observer or an active participant during 3 different
interdisciplinary team meetings. The summary includes key details about
the meeting or experiences.

C:Roles of Interdisciplinary Team Members

Not Evident

A discussion of the roles of interdisciplinary teams members is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
discussion addresses the roles of 3 interdisciplinary team members who
participated in the interdisciplinary team meetings, but the roles are
inaccurately assigned. Or the discussion does not include the roles of 3
separate interdisciplinary team members. Or the discussion is vague or
poorly supported.

Competent

The
discussion addresses the roles of 3 interdisciplinary team members who
participated in the interdisciplinary team meetings, and the roles are
accurately assigned. The discussion is sufficiently detailed and
supported with specific examples.

C1:Importance of Nursing Role

Not Evident

An explanation of the role nurses play is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
explanation addresses the importance of the nursing role in
interdisciplinary team interactions, but the explanation is trivial,
vague, or not supported with examples.

Competent

The
explanation addresses the importance of the nursing role in
interdisciplinary team interactions, and the explanation is meaningful,
sufficiently detailed, and supported with examples.

D1:Effective Leadership

Not Evident

A discussion of the effectiveness of leadership during meetings is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
discussion addresses the effectiveness of leadership in the team
meetings, but the evaluation of the effectiveness of leadership is
incongruent with the description of the team meetings. The discussion
includes some observations as support, but the observations are
irrelevant to the effectiveness of the leadership during the meetings.
Or the discussion does not include observations to support the
discussion.

Competent

The
discussion addresses the effectiveness of leadership in the team
meetings, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of leadership is
congruent with the description of the team meetings. The discussion
includes relevant observations to support the claim of the effectiveness
of the leadership during the team meetings.

D2:Goals

Not Evident

A discussion of goals is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
discussion addresses 2 goals from the observed interdisciplinary teams,
but 1 of the goals is not effective or the discussion only addresses 1
goal.

Competent

The discussion addresses 2 goals from the observed interdisciplinary teams, and they are effective.

D2a:Participation in Goals

Not Evident

A discussion of participation in goals is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The discussion addresses participation in achieving at least 1 goal of 1 of the teams, but the discussion is vague or trivial.

Competent

The
discussion addresses participation in achieving at least 1 goal of 1 of
the teams, and the discussion is sufficiently detailed and meaningful.

D3:Benefits

Not Evident

A discussion of the benefits of having a cohesive interdisciplinary team is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
discussion ineffectively addresses the benefits of having a cohesive
interdisciplinary team. Or the discussion is missing at least 1 of the
given points, or the discussion is not supported with specific examples.

Competent

The
discussion effectively addresses the benefits of having a cohesive
interdisciplinary team. The discussion includes all of the given points,
and the discussion is well supported with specific examples.

D4:Group Dynamic

Not Evident

An assessment of the group dynamic or the effectiveness of the group is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
assessment demonstrates a limited understanding of the group dynamic
for 1 of the observed interdisciplinary team. Or the discussion
inaccurately assesses either the group dynamic or the effectiveness of
the observed group, or the assessment is illogical or is not supported
with specific examples.

Competent

The
assessment demonstrates a proficient understanding of the group dynamic
for 1 of the observed interdisciplinary team. The discussion accurately
assesses the group dynamic and the effectiveness of the observed group,
and the assessment is logical and supported with specific examples.

D4a:Method of Evaluation

Not Evident

The method used to evaluate the group dynamic is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The method used to evaluate the group dynamic is inappropriate, illogical, or ineffective for evaluation purposes.

Competent

The method used to evaluate the group dynamic is appropriate, logical, and effective for the purposes of evaluation.

D4b:Conflicts

Not Evident

A discussion of conflicts is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
discussion of any personal or professional conflicts that arose during
the team interactions is vague or not supported with examples. Or the
conflicts discussed are trivial to team interactions.

Competent

The
discussion of any personal or professional conflicts that arose during
the team interactions is sufficiently detailed and supported with
examples. The conflicts discussed are meaningful to team interactions.

E:Potential Issues

Not Evident

Potential issues are not identified.

Approaching Competence

Fewer
than 2 potential issues are identified. Or the identified potential
issues are not relevant to the interdisciplinary teams, or they are not
based on the evaluation of the groups’ dynamics.

Competent

2
potential issues are identified. The issues are relevant to the
interdisciplinary teams, and they are based on the evaluation of the
groups’ dynamics.

E1:Difficult Group Dynamics

Not Evident

A comparison of methods is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
comparison of 2 methods for dealing with difficult group dynamics is
vague or illogical. The comparison is unbalanced or poorly supported.

Competent

The
comparison of the 2 methods for dealing with difficult group dynamics
is sufficiently detailed and logical. The comparison is balanced and
well supported.

E1a:Method Implementation

Not Evident

A discussion of implementation of methods is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
discussion of the implementation of a method for dealing with difficult
group dynamics is vague or illogical. The implementation method is
inaccurate or inappropriate for the scope.

Competent

The
discussion of the implementation of a method for dealing with difficult
group dynamics is sufficiently detailed and logical. The implementation
method is accurate and appropriate for the scope.

E1b:Function of the Team

Not Evident

A discussion of how team members affect the function of the group is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
discussion of how individual members of the interdisciplinary team
could affect the function or dysfunction of the group is illogical or
inaccurate. Or the discussion is not supported with specific examples.

Competent

The
discussion of how individual members of the interdisciplinary team
could affect the function or dysfunction of the group is logical and
accurate. The discussion is well supported with specific examples.

E2:Factors for Change

Not Evident

A discussion of the factors for change is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
discussion addresses 2 factors that make it difficult for change to
occur in the clinical setting, but the discussion is illogical or not
based on meeting observations. Or at least 1 of the factors is
irrelevant to the clinical setting. Or the discussion does not include 2
factors.

Competent

The
discussion addresses 2 factors that make it difficult for change to
occur in the clinical setting, and the discussion is logical and based
on meeting observations. Both factors are relevant to the clinical
setting.

E2a:Leading Change

Not Evident

A discussion of nurses as instruments for leading change is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The discussion of why nurses, as leaders, are instrumental for leading change is vague, trivial, or poorly supported.

Competent

The
discussion of why nurses, as leaders, are instrumental for leading
change is sufficiently detailed, meaningful, and well supported with
specific examples.

F:Communication of Meeting Outcomes

Not Evident

A discussion of communication of meeting outcomes is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
discussion addresses how meeting outcomes for 1 of the
interdisciplinary teams were communicated throughout the practice
setting, but the discussion is illogical or cursory.

Competent

The
discussion addresses how the meeting outcomes for 1 of the
interdisciplinary teams were communicated throughout the practice
setting, and the discussion is logical and thorough.

F1:Recommendation and Action Items

Not Evident

A discussion of whether recommendations and action items were implemented is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
discussion of whether the interdisciplinary team’s recommendations and
action items were implemented is vague or is not supported with specific
examples.

Competent

The
discussion of whether the interdisciplinary team’s recommendations and
action items were implemented is sufficiently detailed and well
supported with specific examples.

G:View of the Role of the Nurse

Not Evident

A reflection of how views about the role of the nurse were shaped is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
reflection of how views about the role of the nurse in an
interdisciplinary team were shaped is vague or trivial. Or the
reflection is not supported with specific examples from the observations
or participation in the interdisciplinary meetings.

Competent

The
reflection of how views about the role of the nurse in an
interdisciplinary team were shaped is sufficiently detailed and
meaningful. The reflection is supported with specific examples from the
observations or participation in the interdisciplinary meetings.

G1:Leadership in Action

Not Evident

A discussion of observations of nursing leadership in action is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
discussion addresses the observations of nursing leadership in action,
but the observations are vague or trivial. Or the discussion is not
relevant to the role of the nurse.

Competent

The
discussion addresses the observations of nursing leadership in action,
and the observations are sufficiently detailed and meaningful. The
discussion is relevant to the role of the nurse.

G2:Function as a Leader

Not Evident

A discussion of how a nurse could function as a leader is not provided.

Approaching Competence

The
discussion addresses how a nurse could function as a leader in the
clinical setting, but the discussion is vague or trivial. Or the
leadership aspect is not supported with specific examples.

Competent

The
discussion addresses how a nurse could function as a leader in the
clinical setting, and the discussion is sufficiently detailed and
meaning. The leadership aspect is well supported with specific examples.

H:APA Sources

Not Evident

The
submission does not include in-text citations and references according
to APA style for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

Approaching Competence

The
submission includes in-text citations and references for content that
is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized but does not demonstrate a
consistent application of APA style.

Competent

The
submission includes in-text citations and references for content that
is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and demonstrates a consistent
application of APA style.

I:Professional Communication

Not Evident

Content
is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in
mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or
distracts from the topic.

Approaching Competence

Content
is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in
mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is
misused or ineffective.

Competent

Content
reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main
ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology
is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended
meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation
and understanding.