Capella University Medication Errors In Healthcare Organizations Paper

Capella University Medication Errors In Healthcare Organizations Paper

Capella University Medication Errors In Healthcare Organizations Paper

Description

Apply a selected tool to an identified health care problem, analyze the qualitative and quantitative results, and provide evidence-based recommendations to address the problem based on analyses performed. Include a minimum of two visual data displays (charts, graphs, et cetera).Health care has become a data-driven industry that practices evidence-based decision making. Whether the issue is clinical or financial, health care leaders are expected to analyze problems using logic, established tools, and data. Effective leaders engage team members in the problem resolution process, encouraging a wide variety of perspectives. Once the problem is clearly defined, the health care leader is responsible for selecting an appropriate, established framework or tool with which to analyze the problem. Research, critical thinking, and team collaboration are important facets of problem solving.Health care organizations have finite resources, so the solving of problems must take place within the confines of the organization’s available resources. In this assessment you will practice estimating the cost of one recommendation and determining whether implementing the recommendation is realistic for a specific health care organization. You will apply a simple cost benefit analysis and make a recommendation. Cost benefit analysis is another important skill for health care leaders, and this assessment provides an opportunity for you to demonstrate critical thinking skills.This assessment also provides the opportunity to reflect upon the industry and organizational contexts before engaging in application of a tool for problem analysis. You will consider the organization’s setting with respect to level of care, mission, strategy, operations, and culture. Moreover, you will think critically about legal, regulatory, ethical, and risk management operational issues that relate to the selected problem. Let’s get started.Demonstration of Proficiency
By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate proficiency in the course competencies through the following assessment scoring guide criteria:

Capella University Medication Errors In Healthcare Organizations Paper
Capella University Medication Errors In Healthcare Organizations Paper

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:Capella University Medication Errors In Healthcare Organizations Paper

Competency 1: Evaluate problems in health care organizations, and apply tools to improve quality and outcomes.

  • Provide rationale for the selected problem analysis model or tool.

Competency 3: Construct evidence-based health care management recommendations in compliance with personal and professional values and legal, regulatory, and ethical considerations.

Construct evidence based recommendations which may include ethical, legal, regulatory, and organizational standards.

Competency 4: Analyze records and reports based on established benchmarks and organizational goals and performance.

  • Analyze date relative to internal and external benchmarks.

Preparation
As you prepare to complete this third course assessment, consider the organizational context. How does analysis of the problem align with the organization’s vision, mission, strategy and financial viability? Using numbers and organizational considerations, you will explain why the organization should or should not proceed with the recommendation.Instructions
This assessment consists of three parts.Data Presentation
In this part of the assessment, you will apply the selected tool to the problem and produce a minimum of two visual data displays (charts, graphs, et cetera). Examples of tools you might include are:

  • Cost Benefit Analysis: Excel spreadsheet, converted into 2–3 worksheet tabs, graphs, or other visual display format.
  • Compliance Assessment: 3 major criteria converted into 3 separate pie charts or other graphic display format.

Lean Analysis: The percent of variance by major factor converted into 2–3 trend lines.

  • Note: At a minimum, provide a cost benefit analysis of the recommendation. Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Data
    In this part of the assessment you will analyze the collected data relative to benchmarks. Provide discussion as to whether the selected benchmarks are internal to the organization, external industry benchmarks, or a combination. Be sure to include a short summary of observations. Note: If the problem requires an additional tool, such as a compliance audit tool, you may include more than one discussion of the results. Evidence-Based Recommendations
    In this final part of the assessment, provide evidence-based recommendations that will help to address the identified problem. Be sure to support your recommendations with references to current, scholarly, and/or authoritative sources. Also include an explanation as to why the recommendations are feasible for this particular organization. For example, one recommendation might be to offer a new service line.  Even though the new service may not generate an immediate profit, it might serve to draw additional patients into the network.Additional Requirements
  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Postinga 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