This week’s reading suggests that reciprocal inhibition is a good strategy to change reinforcers in the health care system and that “culture eats strategy.”Considering your organization, or a health care organization you are familiar with, write a 3- to 4-page paper that: Describes how and where reciprocal inhibition might be used to improve patient outcomes in quality and improve patient safety. Explains how using reciprocal inhibition may be an improvement in the culture of quality. Include any steps that will foster a culture of quality in an organization to become a high-reliability organization. Recommend at least one strategy for overcoming the challenges of fostering a culture of high reliability. Note: Your Assignment must be written in standard edited English. Be sure to support your work with at least five high-quality references, including two from peer-reviewed journals. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure that your in-text citations and reference list are correct. This Assignment will be graded using this rubric: Week 8 Assignment Rubric (PDF). Your Assignment should show effective application of triangulation of content and resources in your conclusion and recommendations.EXCELLENT - above expectations GOOD - met expectations FAIR - below expectations POOR - significantly below expectations or missing Description of use of reciprocal inhibition to improve patient outcomes in quality and improve patient safety. Points: Points Range: 22 (22%) - 25 (25%) The description shows depth, breadth, triangulation and clarity in critical thinking. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 20 (20%) - 21 (21%) The description fully addresses the use of reciprocal inhibition to improve patient outcomes in quality and improve patient safety.Triangulation was attempted but not fully shown. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 18 (18%) - 19 (19%) The description lacks depth, breadth, triangulation and clarity in critical thinking. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 17 (17%) The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the use of reciprocal inhibition to improve patient outcomes in quality and improve patient safety. Feedback: Explanation of how using reciprocal inhibition may be an improvement in the culture of quality. Points: Points Range: 22 (22%) - 25 (25%) The explanation shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 20 (20%) - 21 (21%) The explanation fully addresses how using reciprocal inhibition may be an improvement in the culture of quality. Triangulation was attempted but not shown. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 18 (18%) - 19 (19%) The explanation lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 17 (17%) The explanation does not analyze (zero points) or poorly addresses using reciprocal inhibition may be an improvement in the culture of quality. Feedback: Recommendation of at least one strategy for overcoming the challenges of fostering a culture of high reliability. Points: Points Range: 27 (27%) - 30 (30%) The recommendation shows depth, breadth, triangulation and clarity in critical thinking. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 24 (24%) - 26 (26%) The recommendation fully addresses the strategy for overcoming the challenges of fostering a culture of high reliability.Triangulation was attempted but not fully shown. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 21 (21%) - 23 (23%) The recommendation lacks depth, breadth, triangulation and clarity in critical thinking. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 20 (20%) The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the strategy for overcoming the challenges of fostering a culture of high reliability. Feedback: Writing Points: Points Range: 18 (18%) - 20 (20%) The analysis is well organized, uses professional tone, contains original writing and proper paraphrasing, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate level writing style. The work is supported by least five high quality references including two from peer reviewed journals. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 16 (16%) - 17 (17%) The analysis is mostly consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling and writing errors.The work is supported by least five high quality references including two from peer reviewed journals. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) - 15 (15%) The analysis is somewhat consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling, and writing errors. The work is supported by least five high quality references but does not include two from peer reviewed journals. Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 13 (13%) The analysis is well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, professional tone and writing, or shows heavy reliance on quoting.The work is not supported by least five high quality references including two from peer reviewed journals. Feedback: Show DescriptionsShow FeedbackDescription of use of reciprocal inhibition to improve patient outcomes in quality and improve patient safety.--Levels of Achievement:EXCELLENT - above expectations22 (22%) - 25 (25%)The description shows depth, breadth, triangulation and clarity in critical thinking.GOOD - met expectations20 (20%) - 21 (21%)The description fully addresses the use of reciprocal inhibition to improve patient outcomes in quality and improve patient safety.Triangulation was attempted but not fully shown.FAIR - below expectations18 (18%) - 19 (19%)The description lacks depth, breadth, triangulation and clarity in critical thinking.POOR - significantly below expectations or missing0 (0%) - 17 (17%)The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the use of reciprocal inhibition to improve patient outcomes in quality and improve patient safety.Feedback:Explanation of how using reciprocal inhibition may be an improvement in the culture of quality.--Levels of Achievement:EXCELLENT - above expectations22 (22%) - 25 (25%)The explanation shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.GOOD - met expectations20 (20%) - 21 (21%)The explanation fully addresses how using reciprocal inhibition may be an improvement in the culture of quality. Triangulation was attempted but not shown.FAIR - below expectations18 (18%) - 19 (19%)The explanation lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.POOR - significantly below expectations or missing0 (0%) - 17 (17%)The explanation does not analyze (zero points) or poorly addresses using reciprocal inhibition may be an improvement in the culture of quality.Feedback:Recommendation of at least one strategy for overcoming the challenges of fostering a culture of high reliability.--Levels of Achievement:EXCELLENT - above expectations27 (27%) - 30 (30%)The recommendation shows depth, breadth, triangulation and clarity in critical thinking.GOOD - met expectations24 (24%) - 26 (26%)The recommendation fully addresses the strategy for overcoming the challenges of fostering a culture of high reliability.Triangulation was attempted but not fully shown.FAIR - below expectations21 (21%) - 23 (23%)The recommendation lacks depth, breadth, triangulation and clarity in critical thinking.POOR - significantly below expectations or missing0 (0%) - 20 (20%)The analysis does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the strategy for overcoming the challenges of fostering a culture of high reliability.Feedback:Writing--Levels of Achievement:EXCELLENT - above expectations18 (18%) - 20 (20%)The analysis is well organized, uses professional tone, contains original writing and proper paraphrasing, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate level writing style. The work is supported by least five high quality references including two from peer reviewed journals.GOOD - met expectations16 (16%) - 17 (17%)The analysis is mostly consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling and writing errors.The work is supported by least five high quality references including two from peer reviewed journals.FAIR - below expectations14 (14%) - 15 (15%)The analysis is somewhat consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling, and writing errors. The work is supported by least five high quality references but does not include two from peer reviewed journals.POOR - significantly below expectations or missing0 (0%) - 13 (13%)The analysis is well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, professional tone and writing, or shows heavy reliance on quoting.The work is not supported by least five high quality references including two from peer reviewed journals.Feedback: Total Points: 100

Your written assignment for this module is a worksheet that describes the following:Common causes of patient fallsActions to prevent falls from occurringYou should be using complete sentences to answer the questions. Ensure that you are using correct grammar. In addition, support your answers using your textbook, course materials, credible internet resources, and scholarly journals. All citations must be in APA format.