Change Initiative: Creating Vision 

LDR 615 Change Initiative: Creating Vision
Change Initiative: Creating Vision
In a written paper of 1,250-1,500 words, evaluate the current forces driving change in your field or industry. As a leader, or considering the role of a leader, assess your organization and evaluate how well it is responding to the forces, and identify where there is a need for change. Develop a vision to inspire this change. Include the following:
Click here to ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER!!! Change Initiative: Creating Vision

Describe your organization, include the organization’s mission, and identify the various stakeholders.
Identify the external and internal forces that drive organizational change in your field or industry. Explain the origin or reason for these internal or external driving forces. Explain how these forces directly affect the viability of your organization.
LDR 615 Change Initiative Creating Vision Essays
Choose one of the driving forces. Describe the specific issues this driving force creates, or will potentially create, for your organization or department.
Propose the steps needed for your organization or department to respond to this driving force.
Predict how employees at various levels in the organization will respond to your proposed change initiative.
Develop a vision for change. Describe how this vision correlates with the organization’s mission, and how you will present this vision to internal stakeholders.
Predict how you think your vision will assist internal stakeholders in supporting the change initiative. Identify potential considerations posed by stakeholders, and discuss how you will respond.

Click here to ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER!!! Change Initiative: Creating Vision
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Change Initiative: Creating Vision SAMPLE

Organizational Description
The organization is University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB). The UTMB, which is located in Galveston, Texas, was founded in the year 1891using the original name of University of Texas Medical Department (UTMB Health, 2020). Originally, the institution was established as one hospital and one school. However, the institution has consistently developed and it currently consists of six hospitals, a broad network of community-based and campus clinics, which provide specialized and primary medical care, and four schools. Besides, the institution hosts an allied Shriners Burns Hospital and many modern facilities (UTMB Health, 2020). The objective of UTMB is to advance understanding and treatment of diseases and injuries through innovative research, both at the bedside and laboratory sections. The institution ensures the provision of skilled and patient-oriented health care and also participates in shaping the future of health science through research, education, and clinical care (UTMB Health, 2020). Overall, the UTMB’s mission is “to improve health for the people of Texas and around the world by offering innovative education and training, pursuing cutting-edge research and providing the highest quality patient care.” The stakeholders of UTMB include medical students, health networks, staff, healthcare providers, patients, local community, health system, and financiers.  Essentially, every stakeholder is crucial to the success of the organization’s vision and is responsible for the implementation of mission to realize both long-term and short-term goals. LDR 615 Change Initiative Creating Vision Essays

Resources
Collapse All

The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations

Read Chapters/Steps 2 and 3 in The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations.

View Resource

Leading Change Through Vision

Read “Leading Change Through Vision,” by Huyer, from Leadership Excellence Essentials (2014).

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=96583824&site=ehost-live&scope=site

What Everyone Gets Wrong About Change Management

Read “What Everyone Gets Wrong About Change Management,” by Anand & Barsoux, from Harvard Business Review (2017).
… Read More

https://lopes.idm.oclc.or

Change Initiative: Creating Vision – Rubric
Collapse All

Presentation of Organization
20 points

Criteria Description

Presentation of Organization (Mission, Stakeholders, Driving Forces in the Industry or Field, Viability of Organization, etc.)

5. Excellent
20 points

A description of the organization is provided, including all major details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization and insight into the various organizational stakeholders. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces contains strong support and provides clear insight into organizational viability.

4. Good
17.4 points

A description of the organization is provided, including most major details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization and its stakeholders. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces provides insight into organizational viability, but evaluation lacks sufficient support and some minor details are missing.

3. Satisfactory
15.8 points

A general description of the organization is provided; some details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization, and its stakeholders are missing. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces is incomplete or lacks of support.

2. Less than Satisfactory
14.8 points

An incomplete description of the organization is presented; significant details regarding the mission and stakeholders have been omitted. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces is missing or incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points

No organizational description is presented.

Analysis of the Effect of Specific Driving Force on Organization or Department
30 points

Criteria Description

Analysis of the Effect of Specific Driving Force on Organization or Department

5. Excellent
30 points

Analysis of specific driving force is logically presented, including all relevant details and strong supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are clearly discussed. Analysis provides unique insight into the effects of the driving force on the viability of the organization or department.

4. Good
26.1 points

Analysis of specific driving force is presented, including major details and general supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are discussed.

3. Satisfactory
23.7 points

Analysis of specific driving force is presented, but it lacks details and supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are generally discussed.

2. Less than Satisfactory
22.2 points

Analysis of specific driving force is presented, but it is incomplete. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are not discussed.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points

Analysis of specific driving force and the effect of this force on the organization or department is not presented.

Proposal of Steps for Responding to Change
30 points

Criteria Description

Proposal of Steps for Responding to Change

5. Excellent
30 points

Detailed steps are proposed for responding to change through a clear and logical sequence. A well-developed prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, with with strong evidence to support claims.

4. Good
26.1 points

Steps are proposed for responding to change through logical sequence. A prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, with general evidence to support claims.

3. Satisfactory
23.7 points

Some steps are proposed responding to change, but they lack a logical sequence and major detail. A general prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, but the prediction lacks major detail and evidence to support claims.

2. Less than Satisfactory
22.2 points

A general recommendation for responding to change is referenced, but it lacks specific steps. No prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, or prediction is vague and lacks supportive evidence.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points

No steps are proposed to respond to change.

Development of Vision for Change
40 points

Criteria Description

Development of Vision for Change

5. Excellent
40 points

A detailed vision is presented with strong supporting rationale. Vision correlates directly with the mission of the organization. Detailed steps for presenting the vision to all internal stakeholders are presented. Presentation of vision facilitates stakeholder involvement. Overall, vision is strongly conducive to supporting a change initiative.

4. Good
34.8 points

A vision is presented with rationale. Vision correlates with the mission of the organization. Steps for presenting the vison to stakeholders are presented. Overall, vision contains elements conducive to supporting a change initiative.

3. Satisfactory
31.6 points

A vision is presented with some supporting rationale. Vision loosely correlates with the mission of the organization. Steps for presenting the vision to stakeholders are generally presented.

2. Less than Satisfactory
29.6 points

A vision is presented, but it lacks rationale. Vision does not correlate with the mission of the organization, or the mission is not stated. Steps for presenting the vision to stakeholders are incomplete or missing.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points

No vision is presented.

Evaluation of Stakeholder Response and Considerations to Change and Vision
20 points

Criteria Description

Evaluation of Stakeholder Response and Considerations to Change and Vision

5. Excellent
20 points

A detailed evaluation of stakeholder response to change is presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are clearly identified and discussed in detail; a clear and well-supported plan for responding to these considerations is proposed.

4. Good
17.4 points

A stakeholder evaluation of response to change is presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are discussed; a general plan for responding to these considerations is proposed.

3. Satisfactory
15.8 points

A stakeholder evaluation of response to change is generally presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are generally discussed; no clear plan for responding to these considerations is proposed.

2. Less than Satisfactory
14.8 points

A partial stakeholder evaluation of response to change is presented, but it is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points

No stakeholder evaluation is presented.

Thesis Development and Purpose
14 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Excellent
14 points

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. Good
12.18 points

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. Satisfactory
11.06 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Less than Satisfactory
10.36 points

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument Logic and Construction
16 points

Criteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. Excellent
16 points

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. Good
13.92 points

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. Satisfactory
12.64 points

Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. Less than Satisfactory
11.84 points

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation,
10 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation,

5. Excellent
10 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good
8.7 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
7.9 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
7.4 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 used.

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
10 points

Criteria Description

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. Excellent
10 points

All format elements are correct.

4. Good
8.7 points

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. Satisfactory
7.9 points

Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

2. Less than Satisfactory
7.4 points

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points

Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Documentation of Sources
10 points

Criteria Description

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

5. Excellent
10 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. Good
8.7 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. Satisfactory
7.9 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. Less than Satisfactory
7.4 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points

Sources are not documented.

Due Date: 25-Sep-2019
 Change Initiative: Creating Vision – Rubric
No of Criteria: 10 Achievement Levels: 5
Criteria
Achievement Levels
Description
Percentage
Unsatisfactory
0.00 %
Less than Satisfactory
74.00 %
Satisfactory
79.00 %
Good
87.00 %
Excellent
100.00 %
Content
70.0
Presentation of Organization (Mission, Stakeholders, Driving Forces in the Industry or Field, Viability of Organization, etc.)
10.0
No organizational description is presented.
An incomplete description of the organization is presented; significant details regarding the mission and stakeholders have been omitted. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces is missing or incomplete.
A general description of the organization is provided; some details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization, and its stakeholders are missing. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces is incomplete or lacks of support.
A description of the organization is provided, including most major details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization and its stakeholders. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces provides insight into organizational viability, but evaluation lacks sufficient support and some minor details are missing. Change Initiative: Creating Vision
A description of the organization is provided, including all major details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization and insight into the various organizational stakeholders. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces contains strong support and provides clear insight into organizational viability.
Analysis of the Effect of Specific Driving Force on Organization or Department
15.0
Analysis of specific driving force and the effect of this force on the organization or department is not presented.
Analysis of specific driving force is presented, but it is incomplete. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are not discussed.
Analysis of specific driving force is presented, but it lacks details and supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are generally discussed.
Analysis of specific driving force is presented, including major details and general supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are discussed.
Analysis of specific driving force is logically presented, including all relevant details and strong supporting evidence. Specific organizational or departmental issues resulting from the driving force are clearly discussed. Analysis provides unique insight into the effects of the driving force on the viability of the organization or department.
Proposal of Steps for Responding to Change
15.0
No steps are proposed to respond to change.
A general recommendation for responding to change is referenced, but it lacks specific steps. No prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, or prediction is vague and lacks supportive evidence.
Some steps are proposed responding to change, but they lack a logical sequence and major detail. A general prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, but the prediction lacks major detail and evidence to support claims.
Steps are proposed for responding to change through logical sequence. A prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, with general evidence to support claims.
Detailed steps are proposed for responding to change through a clear and logical sequence. A well-developed prediction of stakeholder response to change is presented, with with strong evidence to support claims.
Development of Vision for Change
20.0
No vision is presented.
A vision is presented, but it lacks rationale. Vision does not correlate with the mission of the organization, or the mission is not stated. Steps for presenting the vision to stakeholders are incomplete or missing.
A vision is presented with some supporting rationale. Vision loosely correlates with the mission of the organization. Steps for presenting the vision to stakeholders are generally presented.
A vision is presented with rationale. Vision correlates with the mission of the organization. Steps for presenting the vison to stakeholders are presented. Overall, vision contains elements conducive to supporting a change initiative.
A detailed vision is presented with strong supporting rationale. Vision correlates directly with the mission of the organization. Detailed steps for presenting the vision to all internal stakeholders are presented. Presentation of vision facilitates stakeholder involvement. Overall, vision is strongly conducive to supporting a change initiative.
Evaluation of Stakeholder Response and Considerations to Change and Vision
10.0
No stakeholder evaluation is presented.
A partial stakeholder evaluation of response to change is presented, but it is incomplete.
A stakeholder evaluation of response to change is generally presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are generally discussed; no clear plan for responding to these considerations is proposed.
A stakeholder evaluation of response to change is presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are discussed; a general plan for responding to these considerations is proposed.
A detailed evaluation of stakeholder response to change is presented. Stakeholder considerations to change and proposed vison are clearly identified and discussed in detail; a clear and well-supported plan for responding to these considerations is proposed.
Organization and Effectiveness
20.0
 
Thesis Development and Purpose
7.0
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and Construction
8.0
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation,
5.0
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
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.
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.
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.
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Format
10.0
 
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
5.0
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
All format elements are correct.
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style
5.0
Sources are not documented.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
1 DQ1
 
Describe the role of organizational development in contemporary organizations. How does organizational development help organizations prepare for or implement change? Provide an example from your organization.
 
1 DQ 2
 
What environmental forces drive organization development in your field or industry? What are the steps successful organizations take when responding to change? Have you experienced forces of change in your work environment? How did the changes affect your organization?
2 DQ1
Why is vision essential to facilitating successful change in an organization? What is the correlation between a leader’s role/vision and a successful change initiative? Describe a vision that you have seen/heard/read/viewed that you felt inspired successful change. How did this vision influence people’s behavior and attitudes toward a major change initiative?
Re: Topic 2 DQ 1
People are always looking for quality products and services, and healthcare is no exception. Organizations are required to make changes depending on the new rules and regulations, give quality and evidence-based care, and to meet the customer satisfaction. Healthcare organizations are required to provide quality care while also reducing the health expenditure. Leaders need to make changes to the organization depending on the requirements. Policies that help to improve quality through improving structures can reduce waste, rework, delays, lower costs, higher market share and positive company image (Mosadeghrad, 2014). The healthcare services cannot be uniformed as it differs from what services are being provided and which professionals delivers it (Mosadeghrad, 2014). Healthcare leaders need to identify the diverse needs of patients and prepare the employees to provide quality care.
It takes a visionary leader to anticipate the customer needs and communicate that effectively with the employees. Several researches over the years demonstrated the power of transformational and charismatic leadership in organizational changes (Groves, 2006). A charismatic leaders vision often brings to the follower’s attention to the opportunities for change, infuses them with hope, and moves their energy to devote to the vision (Groves, 2006).
One successful change initiative in our organization was to improve patient mobility at the hospital with the aim of preventing complications due to immobility. Every patient was supposed to be out of bed by 10 am in the telemetry unit. In order to bring about the changes, the hospital leadership provided the staff with lift equipment. Champions from the team was identified who would be role models to bring changes. Staff was educated about the importance of using the lift equipment to protect themselves from the injury. Some people were skeptical about the changes initially but once they saw that the change was not only beneficial to patients, but also to staff, they were happy to align with the change.
The leaders were able to communicate effectively with the staff about the changes, and they chose the right people to be the agent of change.
References
Groves, K. S. (2006). Leader emotional expressivity, visionary leadership, and organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(7), 566–583. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1108/01437730610692425
Mosadeghrad, A. M. (2014). Factors influencing healthcare service quality. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 3(2), 77. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2014.65
 
2 DQ 2
 
According to the textbook, people are more motivated when “they are shown a truth that influences their feelings” than they are by analysis. Discuss the relevance of this statement for organizations growing and responding to change. What responsibility does a leader have to honor stakeholder concerns when “feelings” are the primary basis for the concerns?
 
1 DQ1
Describe the role of organizational development in contemporary organizations. How does organizational development help organizations prepare for or implement change? Provide an example from your organization.
Due Date: Sept 14
 
1 DQ 2
What environmental forces drive organization development in your field or industry? What are the steps successful organizations take when responding to change? Have you experienced forces of change in your work environment? How did the changes affect your organization?
Due Date: Sept 16
 
2 DQ1
Why is vision essential to facilitating successful change in an organization? What is the correlation between a leader’s role/vision and a successful change initiative? Describe a vision that you have seen/heard/read/viewed that you felt inspired successful change. How did this vision influence people’s behavior and attitudes toward a major change initiative?
Due Date: Sept 21
 
2 DQ 2
According to the textbook, people are more motivated when “they are shown a truth that influences their feelings” than they are by analysis. Discuss the relevance of this statement for organizations growing and responding to change. What responsibility does a leader have to honor stakeholder concerns when “feelings” are the primary basis for the concerns?
Due Date: Sept 23
 
3 DQ 1
Compare and contrast two different change models. What leadership approach would you use to implement your preferred model? Why?
Due Date: Sept 28
 
3 DQ 2
What is “disruptive change,” and how is this different from “incremental change?” How does disruptive change affect an organization? Provide an example.
Due Date: Sept 30
 
4 DQ 1
Discuss the importance of a change agent and a guiding team. What is the purpose of each, and what traits make them successful?
Due Date: Oct 4
 
4 DQ 2
Discuss two strategies that can be used for leading change. How do these strategies increase stakeholder support and create momentum for a change initiative to be successful? Why might you want to consider including the most vocal critic of the change initiative in your guiding team?
Due Date: Oct 7
 
5 DQ 1
Explain how successful communication is used throughout a change process to convey vision and strategies to stakeholders. What may be occurring with the communication process if the change process begins to fail?
Due Date: Oct 12
5 DQ 2
Why is effective and frequent communication so critical to a successful change effort? Describe either a good or a bad example of this from your organization or one that you have studied. Describe how the communication affected the various stakeholders affected by the change effort.
Due Date: Oct 14
Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
LDR-615 LDR-615-O500 Change Initiative: Creating Vision 200.0
Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less than Satisfactory (74.00%) Satisfactory (79.00%) Good (87.00%) Excellent (100.00%)
Content 70.0%
Presentation of Organization (Mission, Stakeholders, Driving Forces in the Industry or Field, Viability of Organization, etc.) 10.0% No organizational description is presented. An incomplete description of the organization is presented; significant details regarding the mission and stakeholders have been omitted. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces is missing or incomplete. A general description of the organization is provided; some details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization, and its stakeholders are missing. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces is incomplete or lacks of support. A description of the organization is provided, including most major details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization and its stakeholders. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces provides insight into organizational viability, but evaluation lacks sufficient support and some minor details are missing. A description of the organization is provided, including all major details necessary to understanding the mission of the organization and insight into the various organizational stakeholders. Evaluation of organizational viability and driving forces contains strong support and provides clear insight into organizational viability.
Analysis of the Effect of Specific Driving Force on Organization or Departmen

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH ONLINE NURSING PAPERS TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT
 ordernowcc-blue