| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| HLT-308V | HLT-308V-O500 | Educational Program on Risk Management - Part One: Outline of Topic | 130.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | 2: Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) | 3: Satisfactory (75.00%) | 4: Good (85.00%) | 5: Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| % Scaling | 100.0% |
| Introduction | 10.0% | An introduction is not included. | An introduction is present, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. | An introduction is present, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. | An introduction is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support as to why greater attention to this risk management strategy is needed. | An introduction is comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence as to why increased attention to the proposed risk management strategy is needed and provides specific examples of why it is important within the specified health care sector. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Rationale | 10.0% | A rationale is not included. | A rationale is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. | A rationale is present, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. | A rationale is described in full. The submission encompasses essential details as to how the proposed risk management strategy is lacking in the selected plan and provides appropriate support for how its implementation will better meet compliance standards. | A rationale is comprehensive. The submission provides specific examples of where the proposed risk management strategy is lacking in the selected plan and provides insightful supporting evidence as to how its implementation will better meet compliance standards. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Support | 10.0% | Support data are not included. | Support data are partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. | Support data are present, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. | Support data are described in full. The submission provides an appropriate explanation of how the data indicate a need for the proposed risk management initiative. | Support data are comprehensive. The submission incorporates an analysis of how the data indicate a need for the proposed risk management initiative. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Implementation | 10.0% | Implementation strategies are not included. | Implementation strategies are partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. | Implementation strategies are present, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. | Implementation strategies are described in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support as to how the risk management initiative will be incorporated into the selected health care organization. | Implementation strategies are comprehensive. The submission provides specific actionable steps by which the selected health care organization can implement the proposed risk management initiative. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Challenges | 10.0% | Possible challenges are not included. | Possible challenges are partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. | Possible challenges are present, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. | Possible challenges to the risk management implementation are described in full. The submission also describes possible solutions to the predicted obstacles. | Possible challenges to the risk management implementation are comprehensive. The submission provides specific relevant examples of solutions for navigating or preempting predicted obstacles. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Evaluation | 10.0% | Evaluation strategies are not included. | Evaluation strategies are partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. | Evaluation strategies are present, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. | Evaluation strategies are described in full. The submission explains how the evaluation plan will assess alignment with the overall goals of the risk management program. | Evaluation strategies are comprehensive. The submission provides specific examples of how the evaluation plan will assess alignment with the short-term, long-term, and end goals of the risk management program. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Opportunities | 15.0% | Additional risk management opportunities are not included. | Additional risk management opportunities are partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. | Additional risk management opportunities are present, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. | Additional risk management opportunities are described in full, with appropriate support for the recommended changes. | Additional risk management opportunities are described comprehensively, with detailed support for the recommended changes. Level of detail is appropriate. |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 5.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| Argument Logic and Construction | 5.0% | Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. | Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. | Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. | The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 5.0% | Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style | 5.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Few outside sources were used to support the assignment. Limited research is apparent. The information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Research and citations are adequate regarding source, number, and rigor of resources selected. Sources are standard in relevance, quality of outside sources, or timeliness. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Research and citations are timely and relevant, and address all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Research and citations are supportive of the rationale presented. Sources are distinctive. Addresses all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |