Assess evidence to compare national data and standards in quality improvement. (CLO 1 PLO 1, 2)
Assess evidence to compare national data and standards in quality improvement. (CLO 1 PLO 1, 2)
Purpose
This assignment is intended to help you learn to do the following:
- Analyze data to identify a quality improvement need and identify quality metrics. (CLO 1, 3 PLO 1, 2, 3)
- Assess evidence to compare national data and standards in quality improvement. (CLO 1 PLO 1, 2)
Overview
Part 2 of the Signature Assignment takes the information you gleaned from the interviews you conducted for Module 2 and guides you to develop a quality improvement goal by identifying the problem and linking current evidence to set benchmarks/targets. You will complete the first two steps of the Improvement Project Worksheet in Ogrinc et al. (2022)Links to an external site. in the appendix. You will develop a formal paper that provides an in-depth background of the quality improvement issue, reviews supportive literature, and develops a SMART goal.
Note: It is recommended that you read or review the overview of the entire Signature Assessment series of assignments.Download overview of the entire Signature Assessment series of assignments.
Action Items
- Download the Quality Improvement Project Worksheet.Download Quality Improvement Project Worksheet.
- Reread Chapter 5 in Ogrinc et al. (2022)Links to an external site..
- Start the Improvement Project Worksheet by completing Steps 1 & 2 on page 163 in Ogrinc (2022). Copy/paste the worksheet as Appendix A at the end of your paper.
- Identify the Project Goal, using the IOM Quality Goals: Safe, Timely, Efficient, Effective, Equitable, and Patient Centered (STEEEP).
- Develop Aim Statement/SMART goal(s).
- Briefly identify the current evidence (you will develop this more in the narrative of your paper).
- Write a 3- to 5-page paper (excluding cover page, references, and appendices) that:
- Introduces the quality improvement issue and proposed policy change, including summary of background information from interviews, data gathering, and literature.
- Provides a review of literature with a minimum of 5 scholarly articles that address the QI issue. Include national standards/benchmarks for the policy change as applicable.
- Identifies a SMART goal for the project, including measurable outcomes, stakeholders, and timeline for project implementation.
- Uses scholarly writing that includes introduction, conclusions, and headings/subheadings.
- By the due date indicated, submit your work.
Grading Criteria
Please refer to the rubric for information on how your work will be assessed. Please also ask your instructor for any clarification as needed.
Rubric
Signature Assignment 2
| Signature Assignment 2 | ||
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction & Conclusion | 10 to >9.0 pts The student introduces the topic and indicates the purpose of the paper thoroughly, and provides sufficient background information on the topic and presents clearly how the information is connected to their understanding of the topic(s). The student’s conclusion expertly summarizes how they have developed a deeper understanding and provide abundant evidence of critical thought. 9 to >8.0 pts The student introduces the topic and indicates the purpose of the paper, and provides background information on the topic and presents how the information is connected to their understanding regarding the topic(s). The student’s conclusion summarizes how they have developed some understanding and provide evidence of critical thought. 8 to >0 pts The student does not introduce the topic or indicate the purpose of the paper, or does not provide background information on the topic or present how the information is connected to their understanding on the topic(s). The student’s conclusion fails to summarize how they have developed understanding and/or did not provide evidence of critical thought. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLiterature Review Requirements (CLO 1, PLO 1, 2) | 30 to >26.0 pts The student includes a thorough summary of information obtained from the literature, includes well-developed discussions of the main points of what they have learned as they compiled their findings and reflection to write the review, and provides abundant evidence of analysis and critical thought. The content is accurate and relevant. 26 to >24.0 pts The student includes a summary of information obtained from the literature, includes discussions of the main points of what they have learned as they compiled their findings and/or reflection to write the review, and provides evidence of analysis and critical thought. The content is somewhat accurate and relevant. 24 to >0 pts The student does not include a satisfactory summary of information obtained from the literature, or discussions of the main points of what they have learned as they compiled their findings or reflection to write the review. They provide little evidence of analysis or critical thought. The content is neither accurate nor relevant. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSMART Goals (CLO 1, 3 PLO 1, 2, 3) | 20 to >17.0 pts The student completes the Improvement Project Worksheet (Appendix A) with a high degree of logic, clarity and alignment. It adheres fully to the assignment instructions. 17 to >16.0 pts The student completes the Improvement Project Worksheet (Appendix A) in a way that is mostly logical, clear, and aligned. It mostly adheres to the assignment instructions. 16 to >0 pts The student does not complete the Improvement Project Worksheet (Appendix A), or completes the worksheet in a way that is not logical, clear, or aligned. It does not adhere to the assignment instructions. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Requirements (CLO 4) | 30 to >26.0 pts The content flows and is exceptionally well-organized, logical, and meets the length requirement; uses correct English grammar and sentence structure; demonstrates no spelling errors or typographical errors. 26 to >24.0 pts The content flows, exhibits a somewhat logical progression, and meets the length requirement; uses correct English grammar and sentence structure with few errors; demonstrates few spelling errors or typographical errors. 24 to >0 pts The content does not flow or progress logically; does not use correct English grammar, sentence structure, or mechanics. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Requirements (CLO 4) | 10 to >9.0 pts The student follows APA guidelines in citing and referencing sources, uses scholarly resources as required to support their rationale, and includes a title page and references page that follows APA guidelines. 9 to >8.0 pts The student mostly follows APA guidelines in citing and referencing sources, uses some scholarly resources as required to support their rationale, and includes a title page and references page that mostly follows APA guidelines. 8 to >0 pts The student does not follow APA guidelines in citing and referencing sources, uses few scholarly resources to support their rationale, and includes a title page and references page that does not follow APA guidelines. | 10 pts |
| Total Points: 100 | ||
Requirements: 4-5 pages | .doc file
PHD Health & Medical
Thats the second part a continuation from part 1 – your previous work -attached
Answer preview for the paper on ‘Assess evidence to compare national data and standards in quality improvement. (CLO 1 PLO 1, 2)’
APA 1989 words
Click the purchase button below to download full answer…….