This assignment is due at the end of Week 3, Sunday at 11:59 p.m. MT. The guidelines and rubric for this assignment are located and listed below.
Week 3: Quality Improvement Model Application (Links to an external site.)
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to (a) provide examples of a quality improvement initiative or patient safety issue in any healthcare delivery setting, (b) explore the contributing factors for this adverse medical outcome, (c) apply quality improvement theories and philosophies to a healthcare management project, (d) demonstrate an understanding of quality improvement tools by correctly choosing and using them in specific cases, and (e) recognize the extent of problems of patient safety in medical care.
Course Outcomes
Through this assignment, the student will demonstrate the ability to do the following.
- Apply frameworks and theories for improving quality of care in various healthcare systems. (CO 1)
- Use critical inquiry to evaluate the design, implementation, and outcomes of quality and safety improvement strategies. (CO 3)
- Advance knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for the continuous improvement of quality and safety in healthcare. (CO 5)
Due Date: Submit by Sunday 11:59 p.m. MT at the end of Week 3.
Students are given the opportunity to request an extension on assignments for emergent situations. Supporting documentation must be submitted to the assigned faculty. If the student’s request is not approved, the assignment is graded and a late penalty is applied as follows:
- Monday = 10% of total possible point reduction
- Tuesday = 20% of total possible point reduction
- Wednesday = 30% of total possible point reduction
If the student’s request is approved, the student will be informed of the revised due date. Should the student fail to meet the revised due date, the assignment is graded and a late penalty is applied as follows:
- Monday = 10% of total possible point reduction
- Tuesday = 20% of total possible point reduction
- Wednesday = 30% of total possible point reduction
Total Points Possible: 230
Requirements
Assignment Criteria for the Paper
1. Identify any existing quality concern or an existing patient safety issue and provide the rationale for choosing this issue.
2. Explain the background and scope of the problem.
3. Analyze the issue based on the appropriate quality philosophy.
4. Identify the regulatory guidelines, internal and/or external benchmarks, or evidence-based practice standards surrounding the issue—explain what that expectation is and why.
5. Use the appropriate quality improvement tools to improve the quality outcome.
6. Describe how you could or will get involved in this initiative to make a difference and move it forward to enactment.
7. Summarize the content in concluding statements.
8. The body of the scholarly paper is to be 3–5 pages in length, excluding title and reference pages.
9. Grammar, spelling, punctuation, references, and citations are consistent with formal academic writing and APA format as expressed in the current edition.
10. Include a minimum of four references published within the past 5 years, not including your textbook. References may include scholarly websites of organizations or government agencies and must be presented using APA current edition format for electronic media.
Preparing the Paper
|
Category
|
Points
|
%
|
Description
|
|
Introduction and quality concern
|
25
|
11%
|
Identify a quality issue/patient safety issue and provide a rationale.
|
|
Background and scope of the problem
|
20
|
9%
|
Analyze the problem from a literature review and a practical point of view.
|
|
Goals of improvement
|
20
|
9%
|
Identify three goals to improve the problem.
|
|
Quality philosophy application
|
35
|
15%
|
Using a quality model, analyze the patient safety concern and the intervention to bridge the gaps.
|
|
Identification of the regulatory guidelines and internal/external benchmarks or EBP standards for this issue
|
40
|
17%
|
Discuss all related factors to this problem and explain what the expectation is and why.
|
|
Quality process tool and improvement recommendation
|
40
|
17%
|
Apply appropriate quality improvement tools to improve the quality outcome; provide illustrations for all tools used (flowchart, gap analysis, root cause analysis, etc.). Choose at least two tools for implementation.
|
|
Conclusion
|
15
|
7%
|
Provide summary and concluding statements.
|
|
APA style
|
10
|
4%
|
Text, title page, and reference page(s) are completely consistent with APA current edition format.
|
|
Scholarly references
|
15
|
7%
|
Paper is 3–5 pages in length, excluding the cover and reference pages. References include a minimum of 4 scholarly references, excluding the course text.
|
|
Grammar and spelling
|
10
|
4%
|
Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are consistent with formal written work.
|
|
Total
|
230
|
100%
|
A quality assignment will meet or exceed all of the above requirements.
|
Rubric
Quality Improvement Model Application Guidelines With Scoring Rubric
Quality Improvement Model Application Guidelines With Scoring Rubric
| Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction and quality concern
|
| 25 pts
Exceptional (100%) Outstanding or highest level of performance
Introduction offers broad overview of topic narrowing to key concepts to be presented. Purpose statement is clear. All elements provided.
|
20 pts
Exceeds (88%) Very good or high level of performance
Introduction includes issue and purpose. Statement present but may lack a key component.
|
16 pts
Meets (80%) Competent or satisfactory level of performance
Introduction of topic issue lacks occasional important element or specificity. One element provided.
|
10 pts
Needs Improvement (38%) Poor or failing level of performance
Introduction of topic issue has multiple instances of inaccuracies. None of the required elements present or no introduction.
|
0 pts
Developing (0) Unsatisfactory level of performance
Introduction is not present.
|
|
25 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBackground and scope of the problem
|
| 20 pts
Exceptional (100%) Outstanding or highest level of performance
Succinctly defines problem and population with significant demographics; describes depth of the problem and numbers affected.
|
18 pts
Exceeds (88%) Very good or high level of performance
Defines problem, some elements may not be fully developed; rare inaccuracy.
|
16 pts
Meets (80%) Competent or satisfactory level of performance
Identifies problem with lack of depth and occasional important elements or specificity.
|
8 pts
Needs Improvement (38%) Poor or failing level of performance
Identifies problem with multiple instances of inaccuracies or one or more elements missing.
|
0 pts
Developing (0) Unsatisfactory level of performance
Overview of health problem is not present.
|
|
20 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGoals of improvement
|
| 20 pts
Exceptional (100%) Outstanding or highest level of performance
Comprehensive and realistic benefits to nursing profession presented.
|
18 pts
Exceeds (88%) Very good or high level of performance
Benefits to nursing profession stated with adequate clarity or realism.
|
16 pts
Meets (80%) Competent or satisfactory level of performance
Benefits to nursing profession stated but lack clarity or realism.
|
8 pts
Needs Improvement (38%) Poor or failing level of performance
Benefits to nursing profession stated but unrealistic.
|
0 pts
Developing (0) Unsatisfactory level of performance
Benefits to nursing profession absent.
|
|
20 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuality philosophy application
|
| 35 pts
Exceptional (100%) Outstanding or highest level of performance
Application to problem/concern is fully developed and comprehensive.
|
25 pts
Exceeds (88%) Very good or high level of performance
Application to problem/concern is adequately present or model mostly linked to project.
|
20 pts
Meets (80%) Competent or satisfactory level of performance
Application to problem/concern is minimally present or model not always linked to project.
|
15 pts
Needs Improvement (38%) Poor or failing level of performance
Model is not linked to project.
|
0 pts
Developing (0) Unsatisfactory level of performance
Application to problem/concern is absent.
|
|
35 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify regulatory guidelines, internal/external benchmarks and EBP standards
|
| 40 pts
(100%) Outstanding or highest level of performance
Able to discuss all related factors.
|
32 pts
Exceeds (88%) Very good or high level of performance
Able to discuss all related factors but there are some missing details.
|
25 pts
Meets (80%) Competent or satisfactory level of performance
Discussed some related factors but there are some that are missing.
|
15 pts
Needs Improvement (38%) Poor or failing level of performance
Discussion is minimal and most of the factors are missing.
|
0 pts
Developing (0) Unsatisfactory level of performance
No discussion of related factors.
|
|
40 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeImprovement process and recommendations
|
| 40 pts
Exceptional (100%) Outstanding or highest level of performance
Decision recommendation thoroughly discussed. Discusses at least two tools.
|
32 pts
Exceeds (88%) Very good or high level of performance
Decision recommendation developed with rare inaccuracies; Discusses at least one tool.
|
25 pts
Meets (80%) Competent or satisfactory level of performance
Discussion of the decision recommendation lacks occasional important elements or specificity but one tool is discussed.
|
15 pts
Needs Improvement (38%) Poor or failing level of performance
Discussion of the decision recommendation has multiple instances of inaccuracies and/or is vague. One tool discussed.
|
0 pts
Developing (0) Unsatisfactory level of performance
Discussion of the decision recommendation is absent. No tools discussed.
|
|
40 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion
|
| 15 pts
Exceptional (100%) Outstanding or highest level of performance
Provides distinct summary with concluding statements regarding the future direction and focus of the project; reflects key elements of the paper.
|
12 pts
Exceeds (88%) Very good or high level of performance
Provides distinct summary with concluding statements regarding the future direction and focus of the project; does not summarize key elements of the paper.
|
8 pts
Meets (80%) Competent or satisfactory level of performance
Provides distinct summary with no concluding statements; no summarization of key elements of the paper.
|
4 pts
Needs Improvement (38%) Poor or failing level of performance
No distinct summary; concluding statements found at the end in the general body of the paper.
|
0 pts
Developing (0) Unsatisfactory level of performance
No distinct summary or conclusion provided.
|
|
15 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA
|
| 10 pts
There are no APA format errors in the text, title page, and/or reference page(s).
|
8 pts
There are 1–2 APA format errors in the text, title page, and/or reference page(s).
|
6 pts
There are 3–4 APA format errors in the text, title page, and/or reference page(s).
|
4 pts
There are 5 APA format errors in the text, title page, and/or reference page(s).
|
0 pts
There are 6 or more APA format errors in the text, title page, and/or reference page(s).
|
|
10 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeScholary
|
| 15 pts
The table provided is utilized. References include 2 or more scholarly resources, excluding the course text, and may include scholarly websites.
|
12 pts
The table provided is utilized. References include a minimum of 2 scholarly resources, excluding course text. One of the references utilized was not scholarly.
|
8 pts
The table provided is not utilized and/or references contain a minimum of 2 resources, excluding course text. One or more references utilized is not a scholarly resource.
|
4 pts
The table provided is not utilized and/or references utilized are not scholarly and/or fewer than 2 resources were utilized.
|
0 pts
Only one resource was utilized.
|
|
15 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are consistent with formal written work.
|
| 10 pts
Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are consistent with formal written work with no exceptions.
|
8 pts
Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are consistent with formal written work with 1–2 exceptions.
|
6 pts
Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are consistent with formal written work with 3–4 exceptions.
|
4 pts
grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are not followed with errors.
|
0 pts
Rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation are not followed with 6 or more errors.
|
|
10 pts
|
|
0 comments