Develop a written proposal by doing the following 1. Identify a problem or issue related to practice, policy, population, or education that aligns with the organizational priorities you seek to solve.

Instructions:

A. Develop a written proposal by doing the following:
1. Identify a problem or issue related to practice, policy, population, or education that aligns with the organizational priorities you seek to solve.

The problem: Uncontrolled blood glucose levels in the perioperative (Before and after surgery) setting.

Maintaining strict monitoring and control of patient blood glucose levels before and after surgery for all patients, diabetic or not, and the risks/benefits of strict management of same.
a. Explain the problem or issue, including why it is applicable to the area of practice you chose and the healthcare environment.
2. Discuss your investigation of the problem or issue.
a. Provide evidence to substantiate the problem or issue (e.g., organizational assessment, national source documents, evidence from a stakeholder).
3. Analyze the state of the situation using current data.
a. Analyze areas that might be contributing to the problem or issue.
4. Propose a solution or innovation for the problem or issue. Strict monitoring and control of patient blood glucose levels.
a. Justify your proposed solution or innovation based on the results of your investigation and analysis.
5. Recommend resources to implement your proposed solution or innovation. Include a cost-benefit analysis of your proposed solution or innovation.
6. Provide a timeline for implementation based on your proposal.
7. Discuss why each key stakeholder or partner is important for the implementation of the solution or innovation.
a. Summarize your engagement with the key stakeholders or partners, including the input and feedback you received.
b. Discuss how you intend to work with those key stakeholders or partners in order to achieve success.

8. Discuss how your proposed solution or innovation could be implemented, including how the implementation could be evaluated for success.

B. Explain how you fulfilled the following roles during your process of investigation and prop osal development:
1. scientist
2. detective
3. manager of the healing environment

C. Submit the completed attached “Professional Verification Form” from the organizational leader advising
you in your leadership experience.

D. Acknowledge sources, using APA-formatted in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

E. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.

JLP Task 1 (0318)

Not Evident Approaching Competence Competent
A1. Problem or Issue An identification of the problem or issue is not provided. The identified problem or issue is not related to practice, policy, population, or education, or it does not align with organizational priorities that are in need of solving. The identified problem or issue is related to practice, policy, population, or education, and it aligns with organizational priorities that are in need of solving.
A1a. Explanation of Problem or Issue An explanation of the problem or issue is not provided. The explanation addresses the problem or issue, but it does not include an appropriate, logical rationale for why the problem or issue applies to the chosen area of practice and the healthcare environment. The explanation of the problem or issue includes an appropriate, logical rationale for why the problem or issue applies to the chosen area of practice and the healthcare environment.
A2. Investigation A discussion of the The discussion of the The discussion of the

investigation of the problem or issue is not provided. investigation of the problem or issue is illogical or vague. Or the discussion is trivial or missing key details. Or the discussion of the investigation
is irrelevant to the problem or issue. investigation of the problem or issue is logical and sufficiently detailed. The discussion of the investigation is thorough and relates to the problem or issue.
A2a. Evidence of Problem or Issue Evidence to substantiate the problem or issue is not provided. The provided evidence fails to substantiate the problem or issue because it is not an appropriate form of evidence, or the evidence does not logically support the problem or issue. The provided evidence substantiates the problem or issue because it is an appropriate form of evidence (e.g., organizational assessment, national source documents, or evidence from a
stakeholder), and it logically supports the problem or issue.
A3. Analysis An analysis is not provided. The analysis addresses the state of the situation, but current data is not used to support the analysis. Or the analysis is implausible or is not
supported by specific examples. The analysis addresses the state of the situation using current data, and it is plausible and well supported with specific examples.
A3a. Contributors to Problem or Issue An analysis is not provided. The analysis is limited to addressing minor areas that contribute to the problem or issue. Or the analysis is implausible or is not supported with specific examples. The analysis addresses all the areas that potentially contribute to the problem or issue. The analysis is plausible and well supported with specific examples.
A4. Proposed Solution or Innovation A proposal for a solution or innovation for the problem or issue is not provided. The proposal of a solution or innovation to the problem or issue is illogical, inappropriate, or missing significant components. An appropriate solution or innovation is proposed for the problem or issue. The solution or innovation is logical, well reasoned, and includes all significant components.
A4a. Justification of Proposed A justification of the proposed The justification of the The justification of the

Solution or Innovation solution or innovation is not provided. proposed solution or innovation does not make logical connections between the problem and the solution,
or it is not based on the results of the investigation or analysis. proposed solution or innovation makes logical connections between the problem and the solution, and
it is based on the results of the investigation and analysis.
A5. Resources and Cost- Benefit Analysis A recommendation or a cost- benefit analysis is not provided. The resources recommended for implementation of the proposed solution or innovation are inappropriate for the needs of the solution or innovation. Or the recommendation is missing key resources. Or a cost- benefit analysis is not included, or the analysis is illogical or not an accurate representation of the needs of the proposed solution or
innovation. The resources recommended for implementation of the proposed solution or innovation are appropriate for the needs of the solution or innovation. The recommendation includes all essential resources. A cost- benefit analysis is included, and it is a logical and accurate representation of the needs of the proposed solution or innovation.
A6. Timeline A timeline for implementation is not provided. The timeline is not accurate or not achievable given the needs of the proposed solution or innovation. The timeline is accurate and achievable for the needs of the proposed solution or innovation.
A7. Importance of Key Stakeholders or Partners A discussion is not provided. At least 1 of the stakeholders or partners that are identified in the discussion are inappropriate for the implementation of the solution or innovation. Or essential stakeholders or partners are missing in the discussion. Or the discussion does not address why each identified
stakeholder or partner is important for the All of the key stakeholders or partners that are identified are appropriate for the implementation of the solution or innovation, and there are no missing essential stakeholders or partners. The discussion also addresses why each identified stakeholder or partner is important for the
implementation of the solution or innovation.

implementation of the solution or innovation.
A7a. Engagement with Key Stakeholders or Partners A summary is not provided. The summary of the engagement with the key stakeholders or partners is vague or trivial. Or the summary does not include the input and feedback received from them. The summary of the engagement with the key stakeholders or partners is sufficiently detailed and meaningful, and it includes the input and feedback received from them.
A7b. Success A discussion is not provided. The discussion ineffectively addresses how to work with the key stakeholders or partners discussed in part A7 in order to achieve success.
The discussion is illogical or is missing supportive details. The discussion effectively addresses how to work with the key stakeholders or partners discussed in part A7 in order to achieve success.
The discussion is logical and includes supportive details.
A8. Implementation A discussion is not provided. The discussion ineffectively addresses how the proposed solution or innovation could be implemented. Or the plan for implementation is illogical or missing key details. Or the discussion does not include an appropriate, well-supported, or well-reasoned plan for how the
implementation could be evaluated for success. The discussion effectively addresses how the proposed solution or innovation could be implemented. The plan for implementation is logical and thorough. The discussion includes an appropriate, well- supported, and well-reasoned plan for how the
implementation could be evaluated for success.
B1. Role of Scientist An explanation is not provided. The explanation ineffectively addresses how the role of the scientist was fulfilled during the investigation process and proposal development. Or the explanation is vague or lacks specific, relevant examples. The explanation effectively addresses how the role of the scientist was fulfilled during the investigation process and proposal development. The explanation is detailed and
includes specific, relevant examples.
B2. Role of Detective An explanation is not provided. The explanation ineffectively The explanation effectively

addresses how the role of the detective was fulfilled during the investigation process and proposal development. The explanation is vague or lacks specific, relevant examples. addresses how the role of the detective was fulfilled during the investigation process and proposal development. The explanation is detailed and
includes specific, relevant examples.
B3. Role of Manager of the Healing Environment An explanation is not provided. The explanation ineffectively addresses how the role of the manager of the healing environment was fulfilled during the investigation process and proposal development. The explanation
is vague or lacks specific, relevant examples. The explanation effectively addresses how the role of the manager of the healing environment was fulfilled during the investigation process and proposal development. The explanation
is detailed and includes specific, relevant examples.
C. Verification Form A submission is not provided. The “Professional Verification Form” from the organizational leader advising leadership
experience is submitted, but the submission is incomplete. The submission of the “Professional Verification
Form” from the organizational
leader advising leadership experience is complete.
D.
https://lrps.wgu.edu/provision/ 71484321 The submission does not include in-text citations and references according to APA style for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized. The submission includes in- text citations and references for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized but does not demonstrate a consistent application of APA style. The submission includes in- text citations and references for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and demonstrates a consistent application of APA style.
E.
https://lrps.wgu.edu/provision/ 27641407 Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar.
Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic. Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective. Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate.
Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended

meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote
accurate interpretation and understanding.

Perioperative management of patients blood glucose level is critically important, yet frequently ignored or overlooked by even the most skilled surgeon and operative staff. Research Documents the delayed healing and increase of infection risk in patients who have poor blood glucose control in and around the peri operative area.

If a patient is diabetic This Risk is exponentially increased Because of the impaired circulation And poor tissue profusion and tissue nourishment , wound healing, as a result of their underlying illness.

Patients that are not diabetic, sometimes Have Increase glucose Response due to stress and the trauma of surgery, Creating an opportunistic environment for any Pathogens that have inadvertently found their way into patient as a result of surgery. All these complications result in Additional length of stay, increased cost of treatment risk for Sepsis, Risk for organ failure and organ dysfunction And ultimately risk for death. The cost is negligible to monitor blood glucose levels Before and after surgery and to Maintain strict control of the patient’s blood glucose level during the same time. We’re talking about the cost of test strips And Having the qualified personnel to Take the blood glucose reading and communicate that to The appropriate staff for the appropriate treatment. In the event of Patient developing Uncontrolled glucose levels, early signs of sepsis Could be Recognized and treated efficiently and effectively Again thereby reducing complications and costs.