Benchmark – Technology and Medical Errors

Benchmark – Technology and Medical Errors

Benchmark – Technology and Medical Errors

Description

Assessment Description

The purpose of this assignment is to analyze the use of technology in the reduction of medical errors.

Identify a specific medical error and one of the types of technology that has been developed to aid in ensuring patient safety by reducing such errors. Create a PowerPoint presentation of 12-14 slides (not including title slide and reference slides) on the benefits and challenges of the technology for the example you have identified. Include the following in your presentation:

Benchmark - Technology and Medical Errors
Benchmark – Technology and Medical Errors

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Benchmark – Technology and Medical Errors

  1. Describe your chosen medical error and the technology that has been used to address it.
  2. Explain how the identified technology assists in improving quality and safety outcomes.
  3. Discuss how you would monitor the success of the identified technology in improving quality and safety outcomes.
  4. Describe three pros and cons (each) of the use of this technology in your example and in general (e.g., reliability, accessibility, training required, cost, clinician judgement, etc.).
  5. Provide an example or develop a situation in which the use of this technology could still lead to a medical error.
  6. A
      Excellent Good Fair Poor
    Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

    Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

     

    Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

     

    Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

    40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

    Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

     

    At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

     

    Supported by at least three credible sources.

     

    Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

    35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

    Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

     

    One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

     

    Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

     

    Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

     

    Post is cited with two credible sources.

     

    Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

     

    Contains some APA formatting errors.

    0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

    Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

     

    Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

     

    Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

     

    Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

     

    Contains only one or no credible sources.

     

    Not written clearly or concisely.

     

    Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

     

    Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

    Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

    Posts main post by day 3.

    0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

    Does not post by day 3.

    First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

    Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

     

    Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

     

    Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

     

    Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

     

    Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

     

    Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

    15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

    Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

     

    Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

     

    Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

     

    Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

    13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

    Response is on topic and may have some depth.

     

    Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

     

    Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

    0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

    Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

     

    Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are missing.

     

    No credible sources are cited.

    Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

    Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

     

    Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

     

    Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

     

    Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

     

    Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

     

    Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

    14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

    Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

     

    Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

     

    Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

     

    Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

    12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

    Response is on topic and may have some depth.

     

    Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

     

    Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

    0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

    Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

     

    Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

     

    Responses to faculty questions are missing.

     

    No credible sources are cited.

    Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

    Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

    0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

    Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

    Total Points: 100