implementation of transitional community-based management of hospital readmission rates
Description
Individual PowerPoint Presentations covering the following case study
Aims and Objectives: To identify structure, process, and outcomes associated with the implementation of transitional community-based management of hospital readmission rates.
Background: Population health-based projects have previously been described (Chapters 10 and 13). Using a transitional community-based readmissions plan for patients with heart failure, categorize quality metrics into structure, process, and outcomes.Questions/comments to be considered are as follows:
- What are your data input, output, and measures of success?
Suggested response: The data input would be community health workers and patients with heart failure, the output would be readmission plans, and the measure of success would be surveying patient responses. 2, Explain how your devised model incorporates social context.
The community-based management program will ensure that social contexts such as social or familial support, income, or cultural norms are incorporated.
Patients will be treated within their social context and communities.
3.How will you assess your population or community?Suggested response: The patient assessment instrument in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) measure management programs can be used to assess the population or community.
14 percent of total gradeRubricContent/Points-The students answered the data input would be community health workers and patients with heart failure, the output would be readmission plans, and the measure of success would be surveying patient responses. (4 points)-The student identify that the revised model incorporates social context are.
The community-based management program will ensure that social contexts such as social or familial support, income, or cultural norms are incorporated.
- Patients will be treated within their social context and communities.
Chapter 10: Evaluation Methods and Strategies for Electronic Health RecordsAbstractThis chapter reviews methods for evaluating electronic health records (EHRs) aligned with system development life cycle (SDLC) strategies. These methods start with the planning phase to determine evaluation methods for aligning with an organizations strategic plan, as well as measures of success for clear goals and objectives of the EHR. The chapter presents methods for program evaluation lay the foundation for the strategies, and defines suggested measures to evaluate EHRs. It emphasizes an approach for EHR implementation involving a strategic focus on continuous quality improvement, and the evaluation is placed in the context of achieving long-term outcomes for the healthcare industry using EHRs. It discusses evaluation strategies, including provider acceptance, economic value, quality and safety, consumer engagement, and public health impact. Finally, the chapter presents case studies to consider lessons learned in materials and methods. balancing measures, Davies Award, electronic medical record adoption model.
Chapter 13: Public Health Data to Support Healthy Communities in Health Assessment Planning AbstractThis chapter discusses factors that influence the need for communities to provide community health needs assessments, including regulatory requirements and voluntary programs within the United States. It outlines the community needs assessment process and how data can be converted into information to knowledgeably notify the planning process by providing models and tools that can be used in communities to structure the process. The chapter describes community health assessment data analysis methods, including both primary and secondary data analysis, metrics, and triangulation of the information to notify assessment, planning, intervention, and evaluation of health within communities. It discusses a case study of a community and tools used to assess the health community needs and to develop a community health improvement plan. The chapter outlines a road map for clinicians to utilize in approaching community health assessment and improvement by utilizing the available health information technology within the industry.
| 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 | |||||