PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW

1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM

2). 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS

3). PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED RUBRIC DETAILS.

 

Thank you.

Here is the assignment below:

Boards of Nursing (BON) exist in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. Similar entities may also exist for different regions. The mission of BONs is the protection of the public through the regulation of the nursing practice. BONs put into practice state/region regulations for nurses that, among other things, lay out the requirements for licensure and define the scope of nursing practice in that state/region.

It can be a valuable exercise to compare regulations among various state/regional boards of nursing. Doing so can help share insights that could be useful should there be future changes in a state/region. In addition, nurses may find the need to be licensed in multiple states or regions.

To Prepare:

  • Review the Resources and reflect on the mission of state/regional boards of nursing as the protection of the public through the regulation of the nursing practice.
  • Consider how key regulations may impact nursing practice.
  • Review key regulations for the nursing practice of your state’s/region’s board of nursing and those of at least one other state/region and select at least two APRN regulations to focus on for this Discussion.

Post a comparison of at least two APRN board of nursing regulations in your state/region with those of at least one other state/region. Describe how they may differ. Be specific and provide examples. Then, explain how the regulations you selected may apply to Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) who have the legal authority to practice within the full scope of their education and experience. Provide at least one example of how APRNs may adhere to the two regulations you selected.

P/S Note:  The assignment said to write a comparison of at least two APRN (Advanced Practice Registered Nurse) board of nursing regulations in your state/region with those of at least one other state/region. Describe how they may differ.  I practice in the District of Columbia (Washington, DC), and the state of Maryland (MD).

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NURS_6050_Module03_Week05_Discussion_Rubric

 

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting Points: 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. Feedback:

Points: 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. Feedback:

Points: 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. Feedback:

Points: 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. Feedback:

Main Post: Timeliness Points: Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. Feedback:
First Response Points: Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:

Points: 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. Feedback:

Points: 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. Feedback:

Points: 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. Feedback:

Second Response Points: Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:

Points: 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. Feedback:

Points: 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. Feedback:

Points: 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. Feedback:

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

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

Main Posting–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 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. Good 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. Fair 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. Poor 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. Feedback:

Main Post: Timeliness–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3. Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. Feedback:

First Response–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Good 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. Fair 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. Poor 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. Feedback:

Second Response–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Good 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. Fair 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. Poor 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. Feedback:

Participation–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6050_Module03_Week05_Discussion_Rubric

 
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.