Description

I am using a RT (respiratory therapist as my interprofessional collaboaration) on the effects of hypertension has on stroke with the residual effects of pulmonary hypertension. Also, need two references in APA style in this assignment.

The purpose of this discussion is to collaborate with someone from another healthcare profession that could add another perspective and value to your project. Discuss the Additive Value of Interprofessional Collaboration. Be sure to look at the due dates on the course calendar, there is a due date for your initial post as well as for your discussion responses. The initial post should have 200-250 words- maximum 250 words- points will be deducted for going over. See the attached document on how to manage word limits.

  1. Interview a healthcare professional (excludes nurses) who you think could contribute to your clinical question.
  2. Ask the professional about similarities and differences in views of the topic and what additional impact this collaboration could have on health care outcomes.
  3. Write up your collaboration experience in a 250-word limit summary.
  4. Include the name and credentials of the person you have chosen to collaborate with.
  5. Discuss your Revised/Final Recommendations for practice based on the evidence found in the literature. Is this supported by the other profession you interviewed?
  6. Share what you learned from the interprofessional collaboration experience and from the person you interviewed. Specifically, address any similarities and differences in views of the topic and what additional impact this collaboration could have on health care outcomes
  7. Rubic below
Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroductionIntroduction of professional interviewed.

15 to >10.0 pts

Full Marks

Introduced other professional chosen to collaborate with (1. Chose healthcare professional outside their profession (not a nurse)- state their credentials 2. state why you chose that profession, and 3. how you collaborated with them.

10 to >5.0 pts

Partial credit

Missing 1 or 2 required elements

5 to >0 pts

No marks

Missing all 3 required elements

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRecommendationsDiscuss revised/final recommendations of your topic.

50 to >40.0 pts

Full Marks

Health concern/topic was consistently addressed with recommendations supported by a minimum of 2 references. Clear and coherent thought process of how collaborating contributed to the recommendations.

40 to >30.0 pts

Partial credit

Recommendations were not consistently developed or supported by only 1 reference. Lack of clarity/coherency to support recommendations.

30 to >0 pts

No Marks

Recommendations were not consistent with the evidence. No references provided. No clarity/coherency for collaborative practice recommendations

50 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePeer feedback

20 to >15.0 pts

Full Marks

Logical and reflective feedback provided to 2 peers. Peer comment should include: Interprofessional recommendations – or additional consultation. Included 2 references (1 per response).

15 to >10.0 pts

Partial feedback

Feedback provided to only 1 peer. Did not provided interprofessional recommendations or additional consultation. Reference not included to support peer feedback.

10 to >0 pts

No Marks

No peer feedback provided. No references provided.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Mechanics/ APA/ Grammar/ Word limit

15 to >10.0 pts

Full Marks

Almost entirely free of spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. Correct APA. <250 words

10 to >5.0 pts

Partial Credit

Almost entirely free of spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. Correct APA. Over 250 word limit

5 to >0 pts

No Marks

Usually contains many mechanical errors that confuse the reader’s understanding and ability to see connections. Did not follow APA format. Over 250 word limit

15 pts

Total Points: 100

: