managing capital budgets and driving improvements
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
managing capital budgets and driving improvements
A DNP scholar needs to be able to present a well-designed and inclusive business plan when meeting with stakeholders. DNP-prepared nurses hold roles in executive leadership, use data to translate research to evidence-based innovations at a system level, therefore are key in managing capital budgets and driving improvements from a business plan standpoint (Trautman et al., 2018). Stakeholders must understand the quality impact of a proposed project; however, the financial impact is also key to decision making. The creation of a business plan with extensive financial evaluation allows for transparency in quality and process and ensures successful implementations (Day, 2017). Utilization of business plans and forecasting models are skills that the DNP leader is prepared with to effectively communicate expected outcomes when implementing evidence-based interventions. In my project, I will be demonstrating how the utilization of a diabetes discharge bundle will decrease 30-day readmissions in type 2 diabetics. Single readmissions can cost more than an additional 2 days of hospital stay; therefore, in a business plan, this must be addressed (Bansal et al., 2018). DNP leaders are uniquely positioned to serve as a conduit between senior management in hospitals and frontline staff in developing and implementing high-quality, cost-reducing interventions. DNPs have the knowledge of national benchmarks and how investing in programs will improve outcomes and decrease cost (Sidhaye et al., 2019). Stakeholders’ involvement in understanding a well-planned and executed business plan will instill trust in the process and the project team.
Wishes to all for a happy healthy holiday season, I hope you all find joy and rest!!! I appreciate all I have learned from all of you and especially you, Dr. Kidder, thank you. Look forward to seeing you all in January,
Shelly
References
Bansal, V., Mottalib, A., Pawar, T.K., Abbasakoor, N., &Chuang, E. (2018). Inpatient diabetes management by specialized diabetes team versus primary service in non-critical care units: impact on 30-day readmission rate and hospital cost. BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care, 6(1), doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2017-000460.
Day, J. (2017). Inpatient dialysis unit project development: redesigning acute hemodialysis care. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 44(3), 251-255.
Sidhaye, A.R., Mathioudakis, N., Bashura, H., Sarkar, S., & Zilbermint, M.(2019). Building a business case for inpatient diabetes management teams: lessons from our center. Endocrine Practice, 25(6), 612-615. Doi:10.4158/EP-2018-0471.
Trautman, D., Idzik, S., Hammersla, M., & Rosseter, R. (2018). Advancing scholarship through translational research: the role of PhD and DNP prepared nurses. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 23(2), 1. Doi:10.3912/OJIN.vol23no02man02.
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Analyze the Water Footprint Results