IHP 420 – Ethical & Legal Considerations of Healthcare

IHP 420 – Ethical & Legal Considerations of Healthcare

IHP 420 – Ethical & Legal Considerations of Healthcare

Description

Please use the link following for the case study:

ITURRALDE v. HILO MEDICAL CENTER USA | FindLaw

IHP 420 Describe the Case Worksheet Issue (What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court?) ● Who are the parties in this case: plaintiff and defendant? ● What facts and circumstances brought these parties to court? ● Is the court deciding a question of fact—i.e., are the parties in dispute over what happened? Or is it a question of law—i.e., is the court unsure which rule to apply to these facts? ● Which facts of the case raise issues? ● What are the nonissues? ● Other Modified from http://www.lawnerds.com/guide/irac.html IHP 420 Describe the Case Guidelines and Rubric Using the case provided for Final Project I: Malpractice, complete the provided worksheet using complete sentences and submit to your instructor as a Microsoft Word document. Your instructor will use the rubric below to make sure you have correctly identified the crucial facts in the malpractice case. Guidelines for Submission: Complete and submit the Describe the Case worksheet. Critical Elements Parties Proficient (100%) Includes all of the parties in the case Facts and Circumstances Accurately explains the facts and circumstances that brought the parties to court Correctly explains whether the court is deciding a question of fact or a question of law Question of Fact or Question of Law Facts That Raise Issues Clearly explains which facts of the case raise issues Explanation of Nonissues Clearly explains the nonissues of the case Needs Improvement (70%) Incorrectly or incompletely identifies the parties in the case Mentions some of the facts and circumstances that brought the parties to court Correctly identifies whether the court is deciding a question of fact or a question of law, but does not provide supporting facts Correctly identifies facts that raise issues but does not provide supporting information Correctly identifies nonissues of the case but does not explain them Not Evident (0%) Does not identify parties in the case Value 20 Does not correctly identify facts and circumstances that brought the parties to court Does not correctly identify whether the court is deciding question of fact or question of law 20 Does not correctly identify facts that raise issues in the case 20 Does not correctly identify nonissues of the case Total 20 20 100%

IHP 420 - Ethical & Legal Considerations of Healthcare
IHP 420 – Ethical & Legal Considerations of Healthcare

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:IHP 420 – Ethical & Legal Considerations of Healthcare

  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