Assignment Prompt & Instructions
complete a discussion post following the instructions and the rubric attached please
**files (2)**
– ## NURS_8211_WK11_DNP_DoctoralProjectEthicsPledge.docx
– ## wk11discusssion.docx
**## NURS_8211_WK11_DNP_DoctoralProjectEthicsPledge.docx**
**Doctoral Project Ethics Pledge**
To meet the Doctor of Nursing Practice capstone requirement, the Doctoral Project will address a gap in practice or practice change in service of a partner organization’s needs. The Doctoral Project will include all components outlined in this
checklist. A Project Approval Form has been signed by an Organization Leader and a Project Mentor at the Organization, as well as the Faculty Advisor at Walden University. The DNP student
**_will initial each of the boxes below_** to document their commitment to the ethical standards of the DNP project:
__I will ensure that the Project Mentor and Faculty Advisor are both aware of all project activities before they occur.
__I understand that I am not permitted to collect any data from patients.
__I understand that I must adhere to all the guidelines set forth in the checklist for my project type (staff education, development of a clinical practice guideline, or evaluation of an existing quality improvement initiative).
__I understand that any site records I wish to analyze must be stripped of identifiers and explicitly approved for release by the Project Mentor.
__I understand that any permissions to use the site’s data pertain only to this doctoral project and not to my future scholarly projects or research.
__ I understand that I am required to mask the name of my partner organization in all of my drafts and reports shared with classmates and faculty. (The partner organization’s name will only be shared in the reports that I share with the Organization itself.)
__ I understand that this project is considered a Quality Improvement (QI) activity, not “research” (as per
[federal definitions](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/decision-charts-2018/index.html)). Therefore, this project cannot be shared in a research journal or research conference (unless I obtain IRB approval at that future date as well as approval to publish/present from the Partner Organization Leader).
__I understand that I am responsible for complying with the partner organization’s policies and requirements regarding quality improvement data collection.
**## wk11discusssion.docx**
**Instructions:**
· Read and view the Learning Resources, focusing specifically on the Tuskegee study resources.
· Read the ethics pledge.
**Post** a response including the following:
· What are the characteristics of the research study (Tzeng & Yin, 2017), the quality improvement study (Khoja & Moosa, 2023), and the DNP project (Bangura, 2024) in terms of generalizability, sampling, and the nature of ethical protections?
· Compare and contrast ethical considerations in research to ethics requirements for QI and/or for a DNP project.
Rubric:
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week's learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair**• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor**• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) | **30 to >29.0 ptsExcellent** Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. | 10 pts |
Total Points: 100
Reqired resources:
· Alsan, M., & Wanamaker, M. (2018).
[Tuskegee and the health of black men\
Links to an external site.](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=bth&AN=127318646&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6527200). The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1), 407–455.
· Bates, B. R., & Harris, T. M. (2004).
[The Tuskegee study of untreated syphilis and public perceptions of biomedical research: A focus group study\
Links to an external site.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568492/pdf/jnma00177-0047.pdf). Journal of the National Medical Association, 96(8), 1051–1064. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568492/pdf/jnma00177-0047.pdf
· Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, December 5).
[The USPHS untreated syphilis study at TuskegeeLinks to an external site.](https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/index.html). https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/index.html
· Hunt, D. F., Dunn, M., Harrison, G., & Bailey, J. (2021).
[Ethical considerations in quality improvement: key questions and a practical guide\
Links to an external site.](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001497). BMJ Open Quality, 10(3), e001497. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001497
· Office for Human Research Protections. (n.d.).
[_Quality improvement activities FAQs_\
_Links to an external site._](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/quality-improvement-activities/index.html). United States Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/quality-improvement-activities/index.html
· Document:
[Doctoral Project Ethics Pledge (Word document)](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/216680/files/18029306?wrap=1)
· American Nurses Association. (2025).
[_Code of ethics for nurses_ Links to an external site.](https://codeofethics.ana.org/). https://codeofethics.ana.org/
**## wk11discusssion.docx**
**Instructions:**
· Read and view the Learning Resources, focusing specifically on the Tuskegee study resources.
· Read the ethics pledge.
**Post** a response including the following:
· What are the characteristics of the research study (Tzeng & Yin, 2017), the quality improvement study (Khoja & Moosa, 2023), and the DNP project (Bangura, 2024) in terms of generalizability, sampling, and the nature of ethical protections?
· Compare and contrast ethical considerations in research to ethics requirements for QI and/or for a DNP project.
Rubric:
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week's learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair**• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor**• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) | **30 to >29.0 ptsExcellent** Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. | 10 pts |
Total Points: 100
Reqired resources:
· Alsan, M., & Wanamaker, M. (2018).
[Tuskegee and the health of black men\
Links to an external site.](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=bth&AN=127318646&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6527200). The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1), 407–455.
· Bates, B. R., & Harris, T. M. (2004).
[The Tuskegee study of untreated syphilis and public perceptions of biomedical research: A focus group study\
Links to an external site.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568492/pdf/jnma00177-0047.pdf). Journal of the National Medical Association, 96(8), 1051–1064. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568492/pdf/jnma00177-0047.pdf
· Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, December 5).
[The USPHS untreated syphilis study at TuskegeeLinks to an external site.](https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/index.html). https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/index.html
· Hunt, D. F., Dunn, M., Harrison, G., & Bailey, J. (2021).
[Ethical considerations in quality improvement: key questions and a practical guide\
Links to an external site.](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001497). BMJ Open Quality, 10(3), e001497. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001497
· Office for Human Research Protections. (n.d.).
[_Quality improvement activities FAQs_\
_Links to an external site._](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/quality-improvement-activities/index.html). United States Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/quality-improvement-activities/index.html
· Document:
[Doctoral Project Ethics Pledge (Word document)](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/216680/files/18029306?wrap=1)
· American Nurses Association. (2025).
[_Code of ethics for nurses_ Links to an external site.](https://codeofethics.ana.org/). https://codeofethics.ana.org/
**## NURS_8211_WK11_DNP_DoctoralProjectEthicsPledge.docx**
**Doctoral Project Ethics Pledge**
To meet the Doctor of Nursing Practice capstone requirement, the Doctoral Project will address a gap in practice or practice change in service of a partner organization’s needs. The Doctoral Project will include all components outlined in this
checklist. A Project Approval Form has been signed by an Organization Leader and a Project Mentor at the Organization, as well as the Faculty Advisor at Walden University. The DNP student
**_will initial each of the boxes below_** to document their commitment to the ethical standards of the DNP project:
__I will ensure that the Project Mentor and Faculty Advisor are both aware of all project activities before they occur.
__I understand that I am not permitted to collect any data from patients.
__I understand that I must adhere to all the guidelines set forth in the checklist for my project type (staff education, development of a clinical practice guideline, or evaluation of an existing quality improvement initiative).
__I understand that any site records I wish to analyze must be stripped of identifiers and explicitly approved for release by the Project Mentor.
__I understand that any permissions to use the site’s data pertain only to this doctoral project and not to my future scholarly projects or research.
__ I understand that I am required to mask the name of my partner organization in all of my drafts and reports shared with classmates and faculty. (The partner organization’s name will only be shared in the reports that I share with the Organization itself.)
__ I understand that this project is considered a Quality Improvement (QI) activity, not “research” (as per
[federal definitions](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/decision-charts-2018/index.html)). Therefore, this project cannot be shared in a research journal or research conference (unless I obtain IRB approval at that future date as well as approval to publish/present from the Partner Organization Leader).
__I understand that I am responsible for complying with the partner organization’s policies and requirements regarding quality improvement data collection.
**## wk11discusssion.docx**
**Instructions:**
· Read and view the Learning Resources, focusing specifically on the Tuskegee study resources.
· Read the ethics pledge.
**Post** a response including the following:
· What are the characteristics of the research study (Tzeng & Yin, 2017), the quality improvement study (Khoja & Moosa, 2023), and the DNP project (Bangura, 2024) in terms of generalizability, sampling, and the nature of ethical protections?
· Compare and contrast ethical considerations in research to ethics requirements for QI and/or for a DNP project.
Rubric:
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week's learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair**• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor**• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) | **30 to >29.0 ptsExcellent** Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. | 10 pts |
Total Points: 100
Reqired resources:
· Alsan, M., & Wanamaker, M. (2018).
[Tuskegee and the health of black men\
Links to an external site.](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=bth&AN=127318646&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6527200). The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1), 407–455.
· Bates, B. R., & Harris, T. M. (2004).
[The Tuskegee study of untreated syphilis and public perceptions of biomedical research: A focus group study\
Links to an external site.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568492/pdf/jnma00177-0047.pdf). Journal of the National Medical Association, 96(8), 1051–1064. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568492/pdf/jnma00177-0047.pdf
· Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, December 5).
[The USPHS untreated syphilis study at TuskegeeLinks to an external site.](https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/index.html). https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/index.html
· Hunt, D. F., Dunn, M., Harrison, G., & Bailey, J. (2021).
[Ethical considerations in quality improvement: key questions and a practical guide\
Links to an external site.](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001497). BMJ Open Quality, 10(3), e001497. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001497
· Office for Human Research Protections. (n.d.).
[_Quality improvement activities FAQs_\
_Links to an external site._](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/quality-improvement-activities/index.html). United States Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/quality-improvement-activities/index.html
· Document:
[Doctoral Project Ethics Pledge (Word document)](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/216680/files/18029306?wrap=1)
· American Nurses Association. (2025).
[_Code of ethics for nurses_ Links to an external site.](https://codeofethics.ana.org/). https://codeofethics.ana.org/
**## NURS_8211_WK11_DNP_DoctoralProjectEthicsPledge.docx**
**Doctoral Project Ethics Pledge**
To meet the Doctor of Nursing Practice capstone requirement, the Doctoral Project will address a gap in practice or practice change in service of a partner organization’s needs. The Doctoral Project will include all components outlined in this
checklist. A Project Approval Form has been signed by an Organization Leader and a Project Mentor at the Organization, as well as the Faculty Advisor at Walden University. The DNP student
**_will initial each of the boxes below_** to document their commitment to the ethical standards of the DNP project:
__I will ensure that the Project Mentor and Faculty Advisor are both aware of all project activities before they occur.
__I understand that I am not permitted to collect any data from patients.
__I understand that I must adhere to all the guidelines set forth in the checklist for my project type (staff education, development of a clinical practice guideline, or evaluation of an existing quality improvement initiative).
__I understand that any site records I wish to analyze must be stripped of identifiers and explicitly approved for release by the Project Mentor.
__I understand that any permissions to use the site’s data pertain only to this doctoral project and not to my future scholarly projects or research.
__ I understand that I am required to mask the name of my partner organization in all of my drafts and reports shared with classmates and faculty. (The partner organization’s name will only be shared in the reports that I share with the Organization itself.)
__ I understand that this project is considered a Quality Improvement (QI) activity, not “research” (as per
[federal definitions](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/decision-charts-2018/index.html)). Therefore, this project cannot be shared in a research journal or research conference (unless I obtain IRB approval at that future date as well as approval to publish/present from the Partner Organization Leader).
__I understand that I am responsible for complying with the partner organization’s policies and requirements regarding quality improvement data collection.
**## wk11discusssion.docx**
**Instructions:**
· Read and view the Learning Resources, focusing specifically on the Tuskegee study resources.
· Read the ethics pledge.
**Post** a response including the following:
· What are the characteristics of the research study (Tzeng & Yin, 2017), the quality improvement study (Khoja & Moosa, 2023), and the DNP project (Bangura, 2024) in terms of generalizability, sampling, and the nature of ethical protections?
· Compare and contrast ethical considerations in research to ethics requirements for QI and/or for a DNP project.
Rubric:
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week's learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood**• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair**• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor**• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) | **30 to >29.0 ptsExcellent** Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) | **20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) | **10 to >9.0 ptsExcellent** Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. | 10 pts |
Total Points: 100
Reqired resources:
· Alsan, M., & Wanamaker, M. (2018).
[Tuskegee and the health of black men\
Links to an external site.](https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=bth&AN=127318646&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s6527200). The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1), 407–455.
· Bates, B. R., & Harris, T. M. (2004).
[The Tuskegee study of untreated syphilis and public perceptions of biomedical research: A focus group study\
Links to an external site.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568492/pdf/jnma00177-0047.pdf). Journal of the National Medical Association, 96(8), 1051–1064. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568492/pdf/jnma00177-0047.pdf
· Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, December 5).
[The USPHS untreated syphilis study at TuskegeeLinks to an external site.](https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/index.html). https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/index.html
· Hunt, D. F., Dunn, M., Harrison, G., & Bailey, J. (2021).
[Ethical considerations in quality improvement: key questions and a practical guide\
Links to an external site.](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001497). BMJ Open Quality, 10(3), e001497. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001497
· Office for Human Research Protections. (n.d.).
[_Quality improvement activities FAQs_\
_Links to an external site._](https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/quality-improvement-activities/index.html). United States Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/quality-improvement-activities/index.html
· Document:
[Doctoral Project Ethics Pledge (Word document)](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/216680/files/18029306?wrap=1)
· American Nurses Association. (2025).
[_Code of ethics for nurses_ Links to an external site.](https://codeofethics.ana.org/). https://codeofethics.ana.org/