Week 6: SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT

Submission Type:

A written report in APA 7th ed. format, 10-12 pages in length. Details below.

Details:

CASE Study: The purpose of this assignment is to evaluate the value of health information technology in the prevention and detection of errors, as well as analysis of unintended consequences and human factors through quality improvement strategies.

Review the following video and documents on the case study. *
RaDonda Vaught speaks out l GMA [Video file]. Retrieved from
. (4:56).
Lusk, C. (2022). Reconsidering the application of systems thinking in healthcare: the RaDonda Vaught case. Available at
State of Tennessee vs. RaDonda Vaught: Discovery request response. Available at
Note pages 5-6, 50-51.
Apply one of the Quality Improvement Models discussed in the course, or choose an approach from the literature, or the one used in your workplace to analyze the case.
Summarize the case in one paragraph, highlighting the role of HIT.
Describe briefly the model chosen for the analysis.
Provide a rationale for using the selected model over other options.
Follow the model steps and processes to identify the quality, safety, security, privacy, and unintended consequences issues in the case.
List interprofessional team members who may be consulted on this process and their expected role.
Design strategies for your workplace to mitigate the issues identified from the case.
Provide at least one visual of the process and proposed changes (i.e., flow chart, process map, data quality, pareto chart, control chart, data visualization).
Identify changes if needed to policies, EHR, equipment, and other HIT applications.
Create a communication/transition plan.
Develop a staff education plan on changes.
What change theory would be best for this program?
What educational deliver method (s) would be most effective?
Compose metrics for evaluating the plan in each of the learning domains:
Cognitive
Psychomotor
Effective
Reflect on the ramifications of criminalizing the nonintentional reporting of mistakes on your own advanced practice, the nursing profession, and Quality Improvement practices.
Submit the written report in APA 7th ed. format, 10-12 pages in length, not including title page, the 1-page reflection and references. Use headers to distinguish the sections of the paper.

*Note: There are gaps in information available to the public on this case. For the purposes of this project, you may devise realistic responses and fill in the gaps, missing, or incomplete information as appropriate.

See the Grading Rubic.

Submit the paper and letter by Sunday at 11:59 PM PT.

Rubric

Week 6 Signature Assignment Rubric

Week 6 Signature Assignment Rubric

CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Case Study

45 to >39.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Identifies and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the main issues/problems in the case. Makes insightful, clear, and accurate connections to the key concepts of patient safety, quality improvement, and HIT. Response indicates a comprehensive, high-level understanding of the concepts presented in the case.

39 to >33.0 pts

Approaches Expectations

Identifies and demonstrates an accomplished understanding of the main issues/problems in the case. Makes mostly accurate connections to this week’s key concepts of patient safety, quality improvement, and HIT. Response indicates a general understanding of the concepts presented in the case.

33 to >26.0 pts

Falls Below Expectation

Identifies and demonstrates acceptable understanding of some of the issues/problems in the case. Makes some accurate connections to this week’s key concepts of patient safety, quality improvement, and HIT. Response indicates some understanding of the concepts presented in the case.

26 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Does not demonstrate an acceptable understanding of the issues and problems in the case. Does not make connections to this week’s key concepts of patient safety, quality improvement, and HIT. Response does not indicate understanding of the concepts presented in the case.

45 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Content

45 to >39.0 pts

Meets Expectations

The paper reflects sophisticated application of the selected QI Model, design strategies, and staff education, and that the author fully understands the uses, challenges, and unintended consequences associated with the selected health informatics technology (HIT) topic. Metrics are reasonable and well-constructed for evaluation within the appropriate domain of learning.

39 to >33.0 pts

Approaches Expectations

The paper reflects accomplished application of the selected QI Model, design strategies, and staff education, and that the author mostly understands the uses, challenges, and unintended consequences associated with the HIT issue. One of the key assignment topics is not covered in detail. Metrics are reasonable and constructed for evaluation within the appropriate domain of learning.

33 to >26.0 pts

Falls Below Expectation

The paper reflects acceptable application of the selected QI Model, design strategies, and staff education and that the author lacks a full understanding of the uses, challenges, and unintended consequences associated with the HIT. More than one of the key assignment topics is not covered in detail or is missing completely. Metrics are not reasonable and/or constructed for evaluation within the appropriate domain of learning.

26 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

The paper indicates little to no application of the selected QI Model, design strategies, and staff education, or that the author has little to no understanding of the uses, challenges, and unintended consequences associated with the HIT. Metrics are not reasonable or acceptable for evaluation within the appropriate domain of learning.

45 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Reflection

45 to >39.0 pts

Meets Expectations

Fully answers all questions posed and demonstrates a sophisticated ability to reflect on and evaluate thoughts, work, or experiences. Provides substantial, relevant, and clear examples, and interpretations are insightful and well-supported.

39 to >33.0 pts

Approaches Expectations

Answers most of the questions posed and demonstrates a strong ability to reflect. Some relevant details or examples are provided but may lack depth. Interpretations are supported.

33 to >26.0 pts

Falls Below Expectation

Answers some of the questions posed and demonstrates an ability to reflect but is short on details or examples or is vague. Interpretations are not supported.

26 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Does not answer the questions posed and does not demonstrate an adequate ability to reflect. Lacks depth and focus. Details are insufficient and/or not relevant.

45 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Cohesiveness

25 to >21.25 pts

Meets Expectations

A clear and concise approach provides direction for the analysis. Headings that delineate the specific assignment requirements are present. Analysis provides a synthesis of ideas. Writing and integration of source materials are eloquent and skillful.

21.25 to >18.75 pts

Approaches Expectations

A clear and concise approach provides direction for the analysis, although it may lack structure. Headings that delineate the specific assignment requirements are present, but connections among the subtopics are vague or have some redundancy. Analysis fails to synthesize ideas. Writing and integration of source materials are adequate with lapses in structure.

18.75 to >15.0 pts

Falls Below Expectation

Analysis may be general, vague, or incomplete. Connections among subtopics are missing or forced. Analysis is unclear or disconnected from the topic. Writing and integration of source materials are awkward or confusing.

15 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

The paper lacks any clear approach to the analysis. Direction of the paper is unclear. Connections among subtopics are missing or subtopics are not presented. Analysis is missing or disconnected from the topic. Writing lacks skill. Sources are not present.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Supporting Evidence/Research

10 to >8.5 pts

Meets Expectations

Three or more peer-reviewed scholarly sources are integrated completely and eloquently throughout the paper. Sources are highly relevant to the topic, including Nursing EBP research literature. All sources are from credible, scholarly, peer-reviewed materials. Citations support the topic and author statements.

8.5 to >7.5 pts

Approaches Expectations

Two or three peer-reviewed scholarly sources are integrated into the paper, but one may have awkward or forced integration. Sources are mostly relevant to the topic, but some may be slightly less relevant to the development of the topic. All sources are credible but may not include Nursing EBP research. Citations generally support the topic, although the reader must make several inferences in order to make the connections.

7.5 to >6.0 pts

Falls Below Expectation

Two credible sources are used. One of the sources may be slightly less relevant to the development of the topic. Citations are lacking or do not support several subtopics

6 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

Only course materials cited, or one outside source is used. The paper lacks significant references to the EBP literature.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Mechanics & APA Format

10 to >8.5 pts

Meets Expectations

The assignment consistently follows current APA format and is free from errors in formatting, citation, and references. There are no grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors. All sources are cited and referenced correctly

8.5 to >7.5 pts

Approaches Expectations

The assignment consistently follows current APA format with only isolated and inconsistent mistakes and/or has a few grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors. Most sources are cited and referenced correctly.

7.5 to >6.0 pts

Falls Below Expectation

The assignment does not follow current APA format and/or has many grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors. Many sources are cited and referenced incorrectly, or citations and references are missing where needed.

6 to >0 pts

Does Not Meet Expectations

No attempt to follow APA format is indicated. Sources are not used and/or there is no reference page. Mechanical errors significantly interfere with the readability of the paper.

10 pts

Total Points: 180

WRITE MY PAPER

Week 6: SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT