week 1 hc 405 assignment

Unit 1 Assignment – Illustrating the Organization-Wide Performance Improvement Process

Submit Assignment

  • Due Sunday by 11:59pm
  • Points 70
  • Submitting a text entry box, a website url, a media recording, or a file upload

The major healthcare regulatory agencies require hospitals to follow Performance Improvement programs. The Report to Congress sets national initiatives for quality and performance improvement programs. The Joint Commission evaluates hospitals on major quality-related areas called Core Measures and Accountability Measures.

The Affordable Care Act seeks to increase access to high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans. To that end, the law requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care (the National Quality Strategy) that sets priorities to guide this effort and includes a strategic plan for how to achieve it.

Understanding how the government requires hospitals to manage quality performance leads to better insights into the need for rigorous performance improvement programs.

Instructions

  • For this assignment, review Chapters 1 and 2 of the course textbook and the Supporting Lesson Links for the “Report to Congress: National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care” and “the Joint Commission Website. You should also include your own outside research (at least one additional source).
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of national policy and regulatory agencies’ efforts that require hospitals to follow Performance Improvement programs. Be sure to include the following elements:
  • Introduction: Why are quality improvement programs important to healthcare?
  • Body: Answer the following questions:
    • Summarize how the Report to Congress relates to the Core Requirements of the Institute of Medicine described in the text Introduction. Are the focus areas compatible or do they become too confusing? Do you think they are helpful for hospitals that need to plan for quality improvement, or do you think they are asking too much?
    • Compare the Joint Commission’s Core Measures and Accountability Measures: do you agree with the “retiring” of certain Core Measures, or would you keep them in place?
    • Evaluate how the regulatory requirements related to the Organization-wide Performance Improvement Process described in Figure 1.1 in the text. How does the Process described in Figure 1.1 fit into a hospital’s efforts to manage quality?
    • Conclusion: Summarize your evaluation of the government’s effectiveness in guiding hospital quality efforts. Does the American Hospital Association support these efforts?
  • Your paper should be a minimum of three pages (excluding cover and reference pages)
  • Write the paper in APA style with in-text citations as appropriate.
  • Be sure to address all of the elements described in the assignment. Include at least one additional outside reference in addition to your textbook and the Required Resources articles.

Rubric

Unit 1 Assignment – Illustrating the Organization-Wide Performance Improvement Process

Unit 1 Assignment – Illustrating the Organization-Wide Performance Improvement Process

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTopic

15.0 pts

Level 5

Identifies a creative, focused, and manageable topic clearly addressing important points.

13.5 pts

Level 4

Identifies a manageable topic that addresses important points.

12.0 pts

Level 3

Identifies a focused topic that addresses important points.

10.5 pts

Level 2

Identifies a topic that while doable, is too narrowly focused.

9.0 pts

Level 1

Identifies a topic that is far too general and wide-ranging as to be doable.

0.0 pts

Level 0

Does not clearly identify a topic or identifies a topic that is not relevant to the assignment.

15.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExisting Knowledge, Research, and/or Views

15.0 pts

Level 5

Uses in-depth information from relevant sources representing multiple points of views (3 or more) or research aspects (3 or more).

13.5 pts

Level 4

Describes in-depth information from relevant sources representing at least two points of view or research aspects.

12.0 pts

Level 3

Explains information from relevant sources representing at least two points of view or research aspects.

10.5 pts

Level 2

Relates information from relevant and irrelevant sources. No clear point of view(s) of approach(es) are identified.

9.0 pts

Level 1

Tells information from irrelevant sources representing a single point of view or does not identify points of view or approaches.

0.0 pts

Level 0

Information is irrelevant to the topic. No clear point of view/approaches.

15.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent

10.0 pts

Level 5

Demonstrates the ability to construct a clear and insightful problem statement/thesis statement/topic statement with evidence of all relevant contextual factors.

9.0 pts

Level 4

Demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement, thesis statement/topic statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors, and problem statement is adequately detailed.

8.0 pts

Level 3

Begins to demonstrate the ability to construct a problem statement/thesis statement/topic statement with evidence of most relevant contextual factors, but problem statement is superficial.

7.0 pts

Level 2

Demonstrates a limited ability in identifying a problem statement/thesis statement/topic statement or related contextual factors.

6.0 pts

Level 1

Demonstrates the ability to explain contextual factors but does not provide a defined statement.

0.0 pts

Level 0

There is no evidence of a defined statement.

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysisPRICE-P

10.0 pts

Level 5

Organizes and compares evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

9.0 pts

Level 4

Organizes and interprets evidence to reveal patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

8.0 pts

Level 3

Organizes and describes evidence according to patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

7.0 pts

Level 2

Organizes evidence, but the organization is not effective in revealing patterns, differences, or similarities.

6.0 pts

Level 1

Describes evidence, but it is not organized and/or is unrelated to focus.

0.0 pts

Level 0

Lists evidence, but it is not organized and/or is unrelated to focus.

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion

10.0 pts

Level 5

Assembles a conclusion that is a logical interpretation from findings.

9.0 pts

Level 4

Constructs a conclusion that is logical from inquiry findings.

8.0 pts

Level 3

Identifies a conclusion specifically from and responds specifically to the findings.

7.0 pts

Level 2

Produces a general conclusion that, because it is so general, also applies beyond the scope of the inquiry findings.

6.0 pts

Level 1

States an ambiguous or unsupportable conclusion from findings.

0.0 pts

Level 0

States an illogical conclusion from findings.

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLimitations and Implications

5.0 pts

Level 5

Insightfully discusses in detail relevant and supported limitations and implications.

4.5 pts

Level 4

Examines relevant and supported limitations and implications.

4.0 pts

Level 3

Discusses relevant and supported limitations and implications.

3.5 pts

Level 2

Presents relevant and supported limitations and implications.

3.0 pts

Level 1

Presents limitations and implications, but they are unsupported.

0.0 pts

Level 0

Presents limitations and implications, but they are irrelevant.

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting

3.0 pts

Level 5

The paper exhibits an excellent command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling.

2.0 pts

Level 4

The paper exhibits a good command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics or spelling with minor grammatical errors that impair the flow of communication.

1.0 pts

Level 3

The paper exhibits a basic command of written English language conventions. The paper has minor errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impact the flow of communication.

0.0 pts

Level 0

The paper does not demonstrate command of written English language conventions. The paper has multiple errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader difficulty discerning the meaning.

0.0 pts

Level 1

The paper exhibits little command of written English language conventions. The paper has errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader to stop and reread parts of the writing to discern meaning.

0.0 pts

Level 2

The paper exhibits a limited command of written English language conventions. The paper has frequent errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impede the flow of communication.

3.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPAPRICE-I

2.0 pts

Level 5

The required APA elements are all included with correct formatting, including in-text citations and references.

1.0 pts

Level 4

The required APA elements are all included with minor formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

0.0 pts

Level 0

There is little to no evidence of APA formatting and/or there are no in-text citations and/or references.

0.0 pts

Level 1

Several APA elements are missing. The errors in formatting demonstrate limited understanding of APA guidelines, in-text-citations, and references.

0.0 pts

Level 2

The required APA elements are not all included and/or there are major formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

0.0 pts

Level 3

The required APA elements are all included with multiple formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

2.0 pts

Total Points: 70.0

Next

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.