Nurs 3375 health policy and legal aspect (assignment)

Overview: Peer Review

In the Module 3 Reflection Assignment, you get image upon what you bear erudite environing Peer Critique Committee governmentes and Texas Board of Nursing governments as you revolve the actions of spurious fosters and committee members in scenarios. REMEMBER, YOU ARE USING THE TEXAS BOARD OF NURSING RULES, NOT THE STATE YOU LIVE IN. Please use the concatenate supposing in the assignment for the Texas BON Government 217.16.


Refer to your continuity readings and lectures as you consummate the assignment.

Performance Objectives: 

· Apply the Junior Pellucid Government to favoring pellucids.

· Describe the due government protections for a foster who is peer-reviewed.


Use this rubric to influence your effect on the assignment, “Peer Review.”





Needs Improvement


Part 1 (a)

 Applying Government 217.16

   (Total 50 subject-matters) 

Lists all the emend 5 criteria, correspondently deciphers contact of   criteria palpably. (25 subject-matters)

Lists 3 or 4 of the   emend criteria, correspondently deciphers contact of these criteria

 (15 subject-matters)

Lists 2 contacts of criteria.

 10 subject-matters)

Incorrectly catalogues criteria (0   point)


Part   1 (b)

 Reflects upon contacts 

   of Government 217.16

   (Total 25 subject-matters) 

Correctly states if foster should be reputed or not reputed delay 3 tangible characteristics. (25 subject-matters)

Correctly states if foster should be reputed or not reputed delay 2 characteristics.

 (15 subject-matter)

Writes 1 characteristic.

 (10 subject-matters)

Incorrectly judges whether reversals supervenered (0 subject-matter)


Part   2

Violation of IBPR Government 217.19 (Total   25 subject-matters)

Correctly catalogueed the 4 reversals and provides emend senses (25 subject-matters)

Correctly catalogues 2-3 reversals and senses (15 subject-matters)

Lists 1 reversal and sense (10 subject-matters)

Incorrectly catalogues criteria (0 subject-matter)


All 5 inquirys emend (25 subject-matters)

4 inquirys emend (20 subject-matters)

3 inquirys emend (15 subject-matters)

2 inquirys emend (10 subject-matters)

1 inquiry emend (5 subject-matters)

0 inquirys emend (0 subject-matter)


Part 1: (a) Applying Government 217.16(h) Junior Incidents

Read the subjoined scenario and then confutation the inquirys that follow:

You are on your hospital’s Peer Critique Committee (PRC). You are critiqueing Foster A’s custom. She effects on the pediatric ace. In the spent, Foster A has customd safely delayout pellucids. However, impure months ago, Foster A gave immunizations to five pediatric endurings (3 months, 9 months, 2 years, 4 years, and 5 years of age). She used a vial of Hepatitis B vaccine that had been expired for 30 days but quiescent was entity stored in the ace refrigerator. She gave the five immunizations delayin a few minutes of each other, and she got the vial from the refrigerator barely uniformly (i.e., She did not catch it out and supply it five times). She took province for the errors when she was recognizen by her ace director. 

Should Foster A be reputed to the BON?


Let’s critique what believes a junior vs. a reporconsideration (NOT junior) pellucid- 

A junior pellucid is- 217.16(a)-  as defined lower the Texas Nursing Custom Act, Texas Occupations Code §301.401(2), resources persuade by a foster that may be a reversal of the Texas Nursing Custom Act or a Board government but does not show the foster's continued custom poses a destroy of injury to a enduring or another idiosyncratic. 

A reporconsideration pellucid is- 217.16(h)- persuade that falls beyond of the determination of a junior pellucid and must be reputed to a PRC or BON.

Apply the Junior Pellucid Government to aim and subsistence your sentence. This Government 217.16 can be rest at

Use this favoring concatenate barely- it is the functional updated Texas Board of Nursing notice. Click on the concatenate and scroll down to the proestablish to ascertain the epistle (h), where criteria are catalogueed that describes actions that must be reputed to the Peer Critique Committee or BON.

Criteria. In the highest shaft of the consideration, catalogue the 5 criteria as it appears in the government that are leading in determining if an pellucid is a reporconsideration action. All 5 must be catalogueed for generous trustworthiness. Then, in the prevent shaft, archives your sense as to why or why not the foster’s actions believe it reporconsideration and hence injuryful to a enduring.


Criteria that sundericularize an pellucid is recitalable

Rule 217.16(h)

Explanation of whether or not Foster A’s actions are junior vs. recitalable

Criteria : 










Part 1: (b) Recital vs. Not Report

Based on the Government 217.16(h) criteria you catalogueed aggravatehead, would you recital Foster A to the Board? Please decipher why or why not. At lowest 3 tangible characteristics are needed for generous trustworthiness.:       (Explain underneath)




Part 2: Applying Government 217.19 Incident-Based Peer Review 

Read the subjoined scenario and then image upon the actions it portrays.:

Last month, the chairidiosyncratic of your hospital’s Peer Critique Committee (PRC) passed you in the hallway and said, “I’m gladsomesome I ran into you. You’re going to be peer-reviewed.” The chairidiosyncratic continued, maxim, “Your director rest out that you determined the Texas Department of State Health Services two months ago and reputed that LVNs were entity allowed to do the consummate moderate toll on endurings. Also, you made some medication errors aggravate the spent foreigner of months. I’ll let you recognize when the parley is to supervene.” 

You heard trifle further environing the PRC parley. Today, the chairidiosyncratic came to you and told you that you had been reputed to the Texas Board of Nursing. She said, “It was harmonious felt by the effect cluster that you are a troublemaker and bankruptcy the skills to custom due to your med errors. I’m to-boot giving you a ‘heads up’ that you are going to be put on suspension for at lowest three days by your ace director.”

Applying Government 217.19, what reversals of the government supervenered in the aggravatehead scenario? 

First, critique your scholarship environing pellucid-based peer critique. In the highest shaft of the consideration, catalogue any 4 criteria from Government 217.19 that were violated (there are further than 4 to appropriate from). 





In the prevent shaft, decipher how each measure was violated. All 4 boxes must be consummated for generous trustworthiness. Please use the concatenate supposing at


Which sunder of the government was violated? 

(Subsection reckon and epistle OR illustrative characteristic)

(Rule 217.19)

Explanation of reversal ( from the 4 criteria aggravatehead):