Use the “Nursing Roles Graphic Organizer Template” to differentiate how advanced registered nurse roles relate to and collaborate with different areas of nursing practice. Compare your future role with one of the following: nurse educator; nurse leader; family nurse practitioner; acute care nurse practitioner; graduate nurse with an emphasis/specialty in public health, health care administration, business, or informatics; clinical nurse specialist; doctor of nursing practice. Indicate in the appropriate columns on the template which roles you are comparing.

Make sure to compare the following areas of practice in your graphic organizer:

1. Ethics
2. Education
3. Leadership
4. Public Health
5. Health Care Administration
6. Informatics
7. Business/Finance
8. Specialty (e.g., Family, Acute Care)

Include any regulatory bodies or certification agencies that provide guidance or parameters on how these roles incorporate concepts into practice.

You are required to cite three to five sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Ensure that the country in the source is relevant to your paper. Sources cited should be generalizable to the population being studied or discussed.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Criteria Description

Comparison of Roles in Relation to Ethics

5. Excellent

12 points

A comprehensive comparison of roles in relation to ethics is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. Good

11.04 points

A comparison of roles in relation to ethics is clearly provided and well developed.

3. Satisfactory

10.56 points

A comparison of roles in relation to ethics is present.

2. Less than Satisfactory

9.6 points

A comparison of roles in relation to ethics is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A comparison of roles in relation to ethics is not included.

Comparison of Roles in Relation to Education

12 points

Criteria Description

Comparison of Roles in Relation to Education

5. Excellent

12 points

A comprehensive comparison of roles in relation to education is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. Good

11.04 points

A comparison of roles in relation to education is clearly provided and well developed.

3. Satisfactory

10.56 points

A comparison of roles in relation to education is present.

2. Less than Satisfactory

9.6 points

A comparison of roles in relation to education is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A comparison of roles in relation to education is not included.

Comparison of Roles in Relation to Leadership

12 points

Criteria Description

Comparison of Roles in Relation to Leadership

5. Excellent

12 points

A comprehensive comparison of roles in relation to leadership is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. Good

11.04 points

A comparison of roles in relation to leadership is clearly provided and well developed.

3. Satisfactory

10.56 points

A comparison of roles in relation to leadership is present.

2. Less than Satisfactory

9.6 points

A comparison of roles in relation to leadership is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A comparison of roles in relation to leadership is not included.

Comparison of Roles in Relation to Public Health

12 points

Criteria Description

Comparison of Roles in Relation to Public Health

5. Excellent

12 points

A comprehensive comparison of roles in relation to public health is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. Good

11.04 points

A comparison of roles in relation to public health is clearly provided and well developed.

3. Satisfactory

10.56 points

A comparison of roles in relation to public health is present.

2. Less than Satisfactory

9.6 points

A comparison of roles in relation to public health is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A comparison of roles in relation to public health is not included.

Comparison Roles in Relation to Health Care Administration

12 points

Criteria Description

Comparison Roles in Relation to Health Care Administration

5. Excellent

12 points

A comprehensive comparison of roles in relation to health care administration is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. Good

11.04 points

A comparison of roles in relation to health care administration is clearly provided and well developed.

3. Satisfactory

10.56 points

A comparison of roles in relation to health care administration is present.

2. Less than Satisfactory

9.6 points

A comparison of roles in relation to health care administration is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A comparison of roles in relation to health care administration is not included.

Comparison of Roles in Relation to Informatics

12 points

Criteria Description

Comparison of Roles in Relation to Informatics

5. Excellent

12 points

A comprehensive comparison of roles in relation to informatics is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. Good

11.04 points

A comparison of roles in relation to informatics is clearly provided and well developed.

3. Satisfactory

10.56 points

A comparison of roles in relation to informatics is present.

2. Less than Satisfactory

9.6 points

A comparison of roles in relation to informatics is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A comparison of roles in relation to informatics is not included.

Comparison of Roles in Relation to Business or Finance

12 points

Criteria Description

Comparison of Roles in Relation to Business or Finance

5. Excellent

12 points

A comprehensive comparison of roles in relation to business or finance is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. Good

11.04 points

A comparison of roles in relation to business or finance is clearly provided and well developed.

3. Satisfactory

10.56 points

A comparison of roles in relation to business or finance is present.

2. Less than Satisfactory

9.6 points

A comparison of roles in relation to business or finance is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A comparison of roles in relation to business or finance is not included.

Comparison of Roles in Relation to Specialty

6 points

Criteria Description

Comparison of Roles in Relation to Specialty

5. Excellent

6 points

A comprehensive comparison of roles in relation to specialty is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

4. Good

5.52 points

A comparison of roles in relation to specialty is clearly provided and well developed.

3. Satisfactory

5.28 points

A comparison of roles in relation to specialty is present.

2. Less than Satisfactory

4.8 points

A comparison of roles in relation to specialty is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A comparison of roles in relation to specialty is not included.

Required Sources

6 points

Criteria Description

Required Sources

5. Excellent

6 points

Number of required resources is met. Sources are current, and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

4. Good

5.52 points

Number of required sources is met. Sources are current, but not all sources are appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

3. Satisfactory

5.28 points

Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate.

2. Less than Satisfactory

4.8 points

Number of required sources is only partially met.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not included.

Visual Appeal

6 points

Criteria Description

Visual Appeal

5. Excellent

6 points

Appropriate and thematic graphic elements are used to make visual connections that contribute to the understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships. Differences in type size and color are used well and consistently.

4. Good

5.52 points

Thematic graphic elements are used but not always in context. Visual connections mostly contribute to the understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships. Differences in type size and color are used well and consistently.

3. Satisfactory

5.28 points

Minimal use of graphic elements is evident. Elements do not consistently contribute to the understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships. There is some variation in type size, color, and layout.

2. Less than Satisfactory

4.8 points

Color is garish or typographic variations are overused and legibility suffers. Background interferes with readability. Understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships is limited.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

There are few or no graphic elements. No variation in layout or typography is evident.

Presentation

6 points

Criteria Description

Presentation

5. Excellent

6 points

The work is well presented and includes all required elements. The overall appearance is neat and professional.

4. Good

5.52 points

The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor flaws or missing elements.

3. Satisfactory

5.28 points

The overall appearance is general, and major elements are missing.

2. Less than Satisfactory

4.8 points

The work is not neat and includes minor flaws or omissions of required elements.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The piece is not neat or organized, and it does not include all required elements.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

6 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5. Excellent

6 points

The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good

5.52 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

3. Satisfactory

5.28 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

2. Less than Satisfactory

4.8 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.

Documentation of Sources

6 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)