presentation
Top of Form
|
Background: Last week the class read information on ethics and learned about the different ethical principles that can be applied within a healthcare environment. This week, you read about communication, cultural competency, and health literacy, which will be applied to this week’s assignment. As a healthcare administrator, working in the field of healthcare can be very rewarding yet challenging at times, which may require you to address complex situations. Healthcare administrators are the leaders of an organization, they establish the tone of ethical behavior within an organization and can generate a culture that embraces shared values based on ethical guidelines, principles, and practices. Additionally, healthcare administrators ensure that there are ethical resources available to assist decision makers when ethical issue arise. During your career as a healthcare administrator, you may serve on different committees, including an ethics committee, which may address a wide array of ethical dilemmas. Your ability to understand the role of ethics in healthcare is critical. Assignment Scenario: You are a director within your healthcare system at one of the local healthcare facilities and serve as an ad hoc ethics committee member. Your healthcare system’s ethics committee is a multidisciplinary team composed of physicians, nurses, social workers, administrators, chaplains, and other employees. The primary ethics team members include your Committee Chair, which is your Chief Nursing Officer, your company’s Legal Counsel, a Local Ethics Advisor, and several ad-hoc members. A situation has recently occurred at your facility, the ethics committee has requested your assistance to review the information and will require you to present this information at the next meeting. There are four cases that you may select to complete this assignment, two from an eBook, one for an Arxis Financial, and one from the AMA Journal of Ethics on a case in Long Term Care. Information for the cases has been provided below. You will complete the Ethical Decision-Making Steps Template for this assignment. Supporting external evidence will need to be presented using APA 7th Edition formatting. Provide at least four references from the last five years, collected from the weekly course content, and you may include a maximum of two additional resources outside of the weekly content from your own personal research. Include a coverage page and a reference page with your Ethical Decision-Making Steps Template. Click this hyperlink for the template: Ethical Decision Making Steps Template Links to the support you in your assignment: Option 1 and Option 2: eBook Cases There are two cases presented in Chapter 4, starting on page 54, of the Organizational Behavior and Theory in Healthcare: Leadership Perspectives and Management Applications eBook. Link to UMGC Library eBook: Organizational Behavior and Theory in Healthcare: Leadership Perspectives and Management Applications by Stephen Walston Option 3 : PDF of a Corporate Fraud Case involving HealthSouth HealthSouth: A Case Study in Corporate Fraud by Chris Hamilton from Arxis Financial, Inc. Please click this hyperlink to access the ethics case PDF : Option 3 PDF of HealthSouth Ethics Case Study Option 4: PDF of Ethics Case – Ethics and Intimate Sexual Activity in Long-Term Care Please click the hyperlink to access the ethics case PDF: AMA Journal of Ethics Case Study in Long Term Care ACHE Ethics Toolkit: Click the hyperlink to access the ACHE Ethics Toolkit Website ACHE Ethics Toolkit ACHE Making Ethical Decisions (PDF) An article from Healthcare Executive magazine that outlines the multi-step process for ethical decision making. Click the hyperlink to access the ACHE Making Ethical Decisions (PDF): ACHE Ethical Decision Making Steps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rubric Name: Grading Rubric: Assignments
Print Rubric
This table lists criteria and criteria group names in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method. You can give feedback on each criterion by tabbing to the add feedback buttons in the table.Criteria
90-100%
80-89%
70-79%
0-69%
Criterion Score
Analysis of Issue 20%
20 points
The work demonstrates clear analysis of the subject, including its:
(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.
17.8 points
The work demonstrates significant analysis and understanding of the subject, including its:
(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.
15.8 points
The work demonstrates understanding of the subject, including its:
(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.
5 points
The work demonstrates little or no understanding of the subject, including its:
(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.
Score of Analysis of Issue 20%,/ 20
Clarity of Presentation (Flow and Logic of the argument, References) 25%
25 points
The work demonstrates sound and compelling logic in incorporating relevant research in terms of (1) applicability, (2) sufficiency (i.e. more than one source), and (3) currency.
The document is well organized, straightforward, easy to understand, and leads the reader to an informed conclusion.
22.25 points
The work demonstrates adequate logic in incorporating relevant research in terms of (1) applicability, (2) sufficiency (i.e. more than one source), and (3) currency.
The document is generally well organized, straightforward and somewhat easy to understand, but includes extraneous information or questionable findings as it leads the reader to a conclusion.
19.75 points
The work demonstrates questionable logic, relies on literature that is dated or somewhat irrelevant in terms of (1) applicability, (2) sufficiency, or (3) currency.
The document is somewhat disjointed, not easy to understand, and the conclusion is difficult to discern.
0 points
The work employs faulty logic, relying on research that is (1) not applicable, (2) too limited to support the analysis, or (3) not current.
The document is poorly organized, difficult to understand, or fails to reach a cogent conclusion.
Score of Clarity of Presentation (Flow and Logic of the argument, References) 25%,/ 25
Comprehensiveness of Analysis 35%
35 points
The work demonstrates clear, insightful critical thinking, incorporating relevant research in identifying the (1) issues, (2) interactions, and (3) implications of the topic.
The work considers both readily identifiable factors and more obscure matters, explore risks and benefits, and examines multiple aspects that can or may influence the topic being examined.
31.15 points
The work demonstrates a "analysis" level of critical thinking based on relevant research in identifying the (1) issues, (2) interactions, and (3) implications of the topic.
The work considers readily identifiable factors, but omits researching more obscure matters, focus more on benefits than associated risks, and examines the main aspects that can or may influence the topic being examined.
27.65 points
The work offers superficial analysis, relying on generalized research addressing the (1) issues, (2) interactions, and (3) implications of the topic.
The work considers only readily identifiable factors, focuses mostly on benefits versus risks, and examines only the prominent factors that influence the topic being examined.
5 points
The work demonstrates marginal or no understanding of the topic or the (1) issues, (2) interactions, and (3) implications thereof.
The work provides minimal or no evidence to support observations, rely on surface level information or commercial claims, or bases conclusions on limited information.
Score of Comprehensiveness of Analysis 35%,/ 35
Quality of Writing (Grammar, Format) 15%
15 points
The sentence structure is complete, with correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, and varied diction and word choice.
The assignment length is correct. Correct APA formatting is employed.
13.35 points
The sentence structure has minor errors (fragments, run-ons), with correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, but limited diction and word choice.
The assignment length is correct. It has some APA formatting errors.
11.85 points
The sentence structure has several errors in sentence fluency, with multiple fragments, run-ons, and poor spelling, punctuation, or word choice.
The assignment length is inadequate. It includes several APA errors.
1 point
The sentence structure has serious and persistent errors in sentence fluency, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, or word choice.
The assignment length is inadequate. It includes multiple APA errors.
Score of Quality of Writing (Grammar, Format) 15%,/ 15
Intrinsic Qualities (Innovation, Insight) 5%
5 points
The analysis exhibits exceptional inquisitiveness in exploring deeper truths and complex underlying factors, with the goal of developing innovative and insightful solutions.
4.45 points
The analysis applies inquisitiveness in exploring deeper truths and complex underlying factors, seeking somewhat creative answers.
3.95 points
The analysis examines issues within an acceptable or routine framework. The conclusions are sound and well considered, but do not generate a novel means of addressing the topic or developing a solution.
0 points
The analysis accepts things at face value, fails to explore viable alternatives, or does not propose advanced approaches to the topic being examined.
Score of Intrinsic Qualities (Innovation, Insight) 5%,/ 5
Rubric Total ScoreTotal
Score of Grading Rubric: Assignments,/ 100Criterion score has been overridden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bottom of Form