RN‑BSN accountability and collaboration discussion board

Nursing Leadership and Management: Professional Accountability and Interprofessional Collaboration – Discussion Board Assignment

Unit context

Nursing Leadership and Management modules in BSN and RN-to-BSN programs at universities such as GCU and ASU often emphasise accountability, communication, and teamwork as core leadership competencies. The following assignment brief aligns with those expectations and mirrors the structure of common RN-BSN discussion question and participation rubrics for online courses.

Assessment overview

Students participate in a graded discussion that explores professional accountability and interprofessional collaboration in a current or recent practice setting. The task assesses the ability to link leadership concepts with real clinical experiences, use current evidence, and engage in respectful, substantive dialogue with peers.

Assessment type: Online discussion post and peer responses
Unit/module topic: Nursing leadership, professional accountability, and interprofessional collaboration
Word count: Initial post 250–350 words; at least two peer responses of 150–200 words each
Assessment weight: Typically 5–10% of the overall course grade (adjust according to local unit outline)

Discussion prompt

Think about an experience in your current or previous clinical setting where collaboration with other professionals has supported or limited safe, person-centred care. Describe the situation briefly, including the setting, the team members involved, and the nursing responsibilities you held. Explain how professional accountability influenced your own decisions and actions, and consider how leadership behaviours from nurses or other team members affected communication and patient outcomes. Use at least two current scholarly sources to support your analysis of accountability and collaboration in this situation.

Instructions for students

Initial post (250–350 words)

Prepare by reviewing the weekly readings on leadership, professionalism, and interprofessional collaboration, along with any relevant professional standards or codes.

Write a focused description of a specific clinical encounter or ongoing practice situation that highlights accountability and collaboration issues or strengths.
Analyse how professional accountability shaped your choices as a nurse and how leadership behaviours contributed to effective or ineffective teamwork.
Use at least two recent peer-reviewed sources (2018–2025) to link your experience to leadership concepts and evidence about collaboration and patient safety.

Post your initial response by Day 3 of the discussion week.

Peer responses (two replies, 150–200 words each)

Respond to at least two peers by Day 7 of the discussion week.
Acknowledge the main points in each peer’s post and extend the discussion by:

• asking thoughtful questions,

• offering a related example from your experience, or

• suggesting an additional evidence-based strategy for enhancing accountability or collaboration.

Include at least one scholarly or professional reference across your two replies (for example, a practice guideline, professional code, or research article), cited in current APA style.

Maintain a respectful and collegial tone at all times and avoid sharing identifiable patient information.

---

Rubric: Professional Accountability and Interprofessional Collaboration Discussion

Performance levels

The rubric includes four performance levels: Exemplary, Proficient, Developing, and Limited. Scores for each criterion may be adapted to match local grading schemes.

Criterion 1: Critical thinking and application to practice

Exemplary: Provides a clear, relevant clinical example and offers a thoughtful analysis of accountability and collaboration in that context. Links leadership concepts and evidence directly to specific decisions and outcomes in practice.
Proficient: Describes a suitable clinical example and explains accountability and collaboration with some depth. Connects leadership concepts to practice, though some points may remain general.
Developing: Refers to a clinical situation but gives limited detail or surface-level analysis. Mentions accountability and collaboration but with minimal connection to leadership concepts or evidence.
Limited: Gives an incomplete or unclear example and little or no analysis of accountability or collaboration. Does not relate the discussion to leadership concepts or clinical decision-making.

Criterion 2: Use of evidence and professional standards

Exemplary: Integrates at least two recent scholarly sources in the initial post and additional credible references in replies. Uses evidence and professional standards accurately to support interpretations and recommendations.
Proficient: Uses the required number of scholarly sources and standards, with generally accurate interpretation. Some links between evidence and practice may be implicit rather than clearly stated.
Developing: Cites one or two sources, but relevance, recency, or integration into the argument is limited. Professional standards are mentioned rather than applied.
Limited: Provides minimal or no scholarly support. Evidence and standards are absent or not clearly related to the discussion points.

Criterion 3: Engagement with peers

Exemplary: Responds to at least two peers in a timely way with substantive, respectful comments that invite further reflection. Builds on peers’ ideas, compares experiences, and introduces additional evidence or perspectives.
Proficient: Meets the minimum number of replies and maintains a courteous tone. Adds some new ideas or clarifications, though depth varies.
Developing: Replies are brief, mostly supportive, and add limited new insight. Engagement appears reactive rather than dialogic.
Limited: Posts late or offers minimal, one-line replies that do not extend or support the discussion.

Criterion 4: Written communication and organisation

Exemplary: Uses clear, well-organised paragraphs and coherent sentences that follow a logical flow. Vocabulary and tone are appropriate for academic discussion and professional nursing communication, with very few errors in grammar, spelling, or APA style.
Proficient: Communicates clearly with minor errors that do not interfere with understanding. Organisation is generally logical, and APA style is mostly correct.
Developing: Shows some issues with clarity, sentence structure, or organisation. Errors in grammar or APA style occur and occasionally distract from the message.
Limited: Writing is difficult to follow because of frequent errors or weak organisation. APA style is inconsistent or absent.

Criterion 5: Timeliness and adherence to guidelines

Exemplary: Posts the initial response and replies within the specified timeframe and meets or slightly exceeds word and reference requirements.
Proficient: Submits work within the required timeframe and meets most word count and reference expectations.
Developing: Submits posts close to the deadline or misses one element of the requirement, such as word count or number of replies.
Limited: Submits late or incomplete work and does not meet word count, reply, or reference expectations.

References

Middleton, R, Upoalkpajor, JNL, Arthur, J, Boateng, D & Ofei, A 2021, ‘Nurse leadership styles and interprofessional collaboration in acute care settings’, Journal of Nursing Management, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1524–1533, doi:10.1111/jonm.13351.

Foronda, C, MacWilliams, B & McArthur, E 2016, ‘Interprofessional communication in healthcare: an integrative review’, Nurse Education in Practice, vol. 19, pp. 36–40, doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2016.04.005.

Välimäki, M, Marjanen, K, Ruotsalainen, H, Hatu, A & Kankkunen, P 2024, ‘Evidence-based nursing leadership in healthcare: a mixed methods systematic review’, International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 152, 104314, doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104314.

Clark, CM & Kenski, D 2022, ‘Fostering civility and accountability in nursing education and practice’, Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 26–33, doi:10.3928/00220124-20211210-06.

Reeves, S, Pelone, F, Harrison, R, Goldman, J & Zwarenstein, M 2017, ‘Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 6, CD000072, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub3.