NU 626 Unit 5 DQ 1: Civility and Patient Outcomes
The personal story is the opening, not the assignment. The graded parts are the definitions and the synthesis of what incivility research actually shows about patient outcomes.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 16, 2026
Six questions, and the last one asks for evidence
Six questions sit in this prompt and they escalate. Describe a conflict and how it was handled; judge the outcome; assess whether the parties felt heard; say what could have improved it; define professional civility and incivility; analyse the impact on professional relationships and patient care; and synthesise the literature linking conflict resolution to work environments and patient care. The first four are personal and should be efficient — enough detail to analyse, not a narrative. The pivot question is whether the parties felt heard, because it separates a conflict that was settled from one that was suppressed, and suppressed conflict is the version that returns. Answer that honestly even if the honest answer is that the matter was closed without anyone being satisfied. Keep the improvement question concrete too: what someone could have said, at which moment, that would have changed the outcome. A general call for better communication is the answer the rubric is expecting you not to give.
Define the terms with more precision than everyday usage allows. Incivility is low-intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous intent to harm — eye-rolling, exclusion from information, dismissive tone, being spoken over — and the ambiguity is definitional rather than incidental, which is exactly why it is hard to report and easy to deny. Distinguish it from bullying, which is repeated and directed, and from workplace violence, which is a separate category with its own reporting duties. Then use the literature, since the prompt requires it and the evidence is unusually concrete. Incivility is associated with reduced information sharing, with clinicians hesitating to ask for help or to question a decision, and with measurable degradation in team task performance in simulated clinical scenarios. That is the mechanism a marker is looking for: the patient harm does not come from rudeness itself but from the communication that stops happening around it. Cite that rather than asserting the link.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Analyse a personal conflict rather than narrate it.
- 02Define incivility precisely and distinguish it from bullying and violence.
- 03Identify the communication mechanism linking incivility to patient harm.
- 04Synthesise evidence rather than assert a link.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS Discussion Questions (DQ) Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words. Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source. Herzing NU 626 Unit 5 DQ 1 One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words. I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses. Weekly Participation Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately. In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies. Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work). Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week. APA Format and Writing Quality Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required). Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation. I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition. Use of Direct Quotes I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly. As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content. It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source. LopesWrite Policy For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me. Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes. Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own? Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score. Late Policy The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies. Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances. If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect. I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension. As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading. Communication Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me: Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class. Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A conflict described in enough detail to analyse.
- 02An honest assessment of whether parties felt heard.
- 03Precise definitions of civility and incivility.
- 04A distinction from bullying and workplace violence.
- 05Cited evidence connecting incivility to patient outcomes through communication.
The conflict, the definitions, then the literature
The conflict and how it was handled
Describe efficiently, with the handling made visible.
Was it resolved or suppressed
Assess whether parties felt heard and what followed.
Defining civility and incivility
Give precise definitions including ambiguity of intent.
How it reaches the patient
Trace the communication mechanism to care outcomes.
What the literature supports
Synthesise evidence on conflict resolution and work environment.
Incivility research measures outcomes, so use it
Recommended databases
- AHRQ Patient Safety Network
- CINAHL
- PubMed Central
- OSHA
Search sequence
- 1.Read a definitional source before writing your own definition.
- 2.Search incivility and team performance, where the outcome evidence is strongest.
- 3.Distinguish the bullying and workplace violence literatures as you go.
- 4.Look for a simulation study, which isolates the mechanism cleanly.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Disruptive and Unprofessional Behavior
AHRQ Patient Safety Network · 2021
The definitional and outcome evidence, in the form a marker will recognise.
- 02
Culture of Safety
AHRQ Patient Safety Network · 2024
Why speaking up stops, which is the mechanism between incivility and harm.
- 03
Workplace Violence in Healthcare
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf, National Library of Medicine · 2024
Workplace violence as a separate category with its own duties.
- 04
Healthcare - Workplace Violence | Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor · 2024
The regulatory boundary, useful for distinguishing incivility from reportable violence.
- 05
Patient Safety and Quality
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, NCBI Bookshelf · 2008
The wider evidence base connecting team functioning to patient outcomes.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Spending most of the post on the personal narrative.
- Defining incivility as rudeness, losing the ambiguity that defines it.
- Asserting that incivility harms patients without a mechanism.
- Conflating incivility with bullying and with violence.
Submission checklist
- Is the personal section analysis rather than story?
- Does your definition include the ambiguity of intent?
- Is the patient-outcome link explained through communication?
- Is the literature cited rather than referred to?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.