CON Faculty Practice Fund
|UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER
COLLEGE OF NURSING
|Faculty Practice Fund
|Subsection: Appendix Z
|Appendix - Appendices
|Originating Date: May 2022
|Responsible Reviewing Agency:
Faculty Practice Committee
Faculty Coordinating Council
To qualify for the Faculty Practice Fund, the applicant(s) must:
- be practicing faculty within the College of Nursing who has a contract with the Morehead Center for Nursing Practice.
- have a current RN license
- complete the necessary application with receipt within 30 days of payment
The Faculty Practice Fund can be used to reimburse for the following items using this priority order:
- DEA and APRN certifications
- Scholarly projects and/or dissemination
- Continuing education
The Faculty Practice Fund cannot be used for APRN licenses, RN licenses, or other certifications such as BLS, ACLS, etc.
All DEA and APRN certifications will be approved automatically, dependent upon having sufficient funds available. There is no formal application for DEA and APRN certification requests, faculty must submit a detailed receipt within 30 days of obtaining/renewing DEA and APRN certification.
Faculty will apply for funds for scholarly projects, dissemination, and continuing education. The Faculty Practice Committee of the UNMC College of Nursing will review all applications. The awards will range up to $500. The Faculty Practice Committee will determine whether to fund the request and if funded, how much money to award based upon the scoring rubric and any related discussion. Funding scholarly projects, dissemination, and continuing education is dependent upon having sufficient funds available. Applications to be received on a rolling basis.
|Scoring Rubric Applied to Scholarly Projects, Dissemination, and Continuing Education Applications
|Connection to practice role
|Well-developed plan or design
|Plans for dissemination
|Promotes UNMC CON
|Promotes faculty practice
Not applicable – This item is not relevant to this application.
Score of 1 – The application poses a weak explanation for the request. There is little explanation of what the funding request is for or how the outcomes are beneficial.
Score of 2 – The application poses a reasonable explanation for the request. The explanation of the funding request is clear and concise. The outcomes are moderately beneficial.
Score of 3 – The application poses a strong explanation for the request. The explanation of the funding request is clear and concise. Additionally, it includes a strong explanation for significance, innovation, and approach. The outcomes are very beneficial.