Walden Univerity Interdisciplinary Collaboration Skills Discussion
Description
Evaluating Interdisciplinary Collaboration Skills
In order to develop the most effective processes to ensure that primary health care is successful, interdisciplinary collaboration is essential (Petri, 2010). The term interdisciplinary collaboration refers to an interpersonal goal that is unobtainable when professionals act individually (Hickey & Brosnan, 2017). In the healthcare setting, “interprofessional work involving various health and social care professionals who come together regularly to solve problems or provide services” is known as interprofessional collaboration (Hickey & Brosnan, 2017, p. 231).
Hickey and Brosnan (2017) list the following benefits to interprofessional collaboration:
- To resolve real-world problems
- To resolve complex problems
- To provide different perspectives about a problem
- To create a comprehensive prospective theory-based hypothesis for research
- To develop consensus around clinical definitions and guidelines for complex diseases and conditions
- To provide comprehensive services such as health care and health educations (p. 233)
For interdisciplinary collaboration to be effective, each member of the team must share the same vision, goals, and objectives (Petri, 2010). This shared vision, the ability for groups to work together, and lack of interprofessional education could prove to be barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration (Petri, 2010). Having just started in a new unit as a nurse manager, getting to know the team members of each discipline and learning the details of the vision and current quality improvement initiatives is an area of growth for this particular writer.
The findings of a study by Braithwaite et al. (2012) highlighted the barriers that organizations run into when attempting to create a change across an entire organization. In conclusion, while there are always areas for growth, when implemented, interdisciplinary collaboration can improve relatability, interaction, and communication amongst healthcare workers (Braithwaite et al., 2012). This results in increased quality of care and patient safety (Braithwaite et al., 2012).
References
Braithwaite, J., Westbrook, M., Nugus, P., Greenfield, D., Travaglia, J., Runciman, W., & Westbrook, J. (2012). A four year, systems-wide intervention promoting interprofessional
collaboration. BMC Health Services Research, 12(1), 99-106. Retrieved from Walden University Library Databases
Hickey, J. V., & Brosnan, C. A. (2017). Evaluation of health care quality for DNPs (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Petri, L. (2010). Concept analysis of interdisciplinary collaboration. Nursing Forum, 45(2), 73-82. Retrieved from Walden University Library Databas
APA, 2 references
| 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 | |||||