Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation

NHS-FP6004 u01a1 - Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation Learner: Danielle , Ferrante

OVERALL COMMENTS Danielle,

Thank you for this assessment submission. You are off to a great start for this assessment. Remember per APA

all factual material must be cited including data from the facility.

Please see comments below and be sure to reach out if you need any clarification and contact the course tutor for

guidance.

Dr. Matthews

RUBRICS

Capella University Scoring Guide Tool https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails

1 of 7 11/22/2019, 3:44 PM

CRITERIA 1

Evaluate dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal

health care policies or laws.

COMPETENCY

Evaluate relevant indicators of performance, such as benchmarks, research, and best practices, for health

care policies and law for patients, organizations, and populations.

NON_PERFORMANCE:

Does not analyze dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health

care policies or laws.

BASIC:

Analyzes dashboard metrics, but relationship to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health care

policies or laws is missing or flawed.

PROFICIENT:

Evaluates dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health care

policies or laws.

DISTINGUISHED:

Evaluates dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health care

policies or laws, and identifies knowledge gaps, unknowns, missing information, unanswered questions,

or areas of uncertainty (where further information could improve the evaluation).

Comments:

Further information is needed and support for the benchmarks. For instance 1:2 staffing ratio? Is this a

state benchmark as this is not all states. If you discuss size and capacity - you need to further describe this

assertion as there are many factors that would impact this.

Error in spelling makes ratio - ration

For this criteria you need to really tighten up the benchmarks and compare to national, state or local

benchmarks. It is so important to get this criteria right as all future assessments will build on this one.

Consider medication errors, falls, readmissions etc. -these are the most readily available for comparison.

Capella University Scoring Guide Tool https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails

2 of 7 11/22/2019, 3:44 PM

CRITERIA 2

Analyze challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care

organization or an interprofessional team.

COMPETENCY

Analyze the effects of health care policies, laws, and regulations on organizations, interprofessional teams,

and personal practice.

NON_PERFORMANCE:

Does not list challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care organization or

an interprofessional team.

BASIC:

Lists but does not analyze challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care

organization or an interprofessional team, or provides a flawed analysis that misses key challenges.

PROFICIENT:

Analyzes challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care organization or an

interprofessional team.

DISTINGUISHED:

Analyzes challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care organization or an

interprofessional team, and identifies assumptions on which the analysis is based.

Comments:

As the first criteria is flawed, the challenges are flawed. Consider health disparities, accessibility,

affordability and health literacy.

Capella University Scoring Guide Tool https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails

3 of 7 11/22/2019, 3:44 PM

CRITERIA 3

Evaluate a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an

interprofessional team that has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or

performance.

COMPETENCY

Evaluate relevant indicators of performance, such as benchmarks, research, and best practices, for health

care policies and law for patients, organizations, and populations.

NON_PERFORMANCE:

Does not evaluate a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an interprofessional

team that has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or performance.

BASIC:

Provides a partial or flawed evaluation of a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization

or an interprofessional team; misses factors that are key to understanding the potential for improving

overall quality or performance.

PROFICIENT:

Evaluates a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an interprofessional team that

has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or performance.

DISTINGUISHED:

Evaluates a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an interprofessional team that

has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or performance, and defends reasoning for selecting

this benchmark over another with similar potential for improvement.

Comments:

I see that you discuss staffing, but you need to compare to benchmarks from federal , state or local policy.

Then argue why this is most important regarding overall quality or performance.

Capella University Scoring Guide Tool https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails

4 of 7 11/22/2019, 3:44 PM

CRITERIA 4

Advocate for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed

toward an appropriate group of stakeholders.

COMPETENCY

Lead the development and implementation of ethical and culturally sensitive policies that improve health

outcomes for individuals, organizations, and populations.

NON_PERFORMANCE:

Does not advocate for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed toward an

appropriate group of stakeholders.

BASIC:

Attempts to advocate for ethical action but attempt is flawed, superficial, or does not address an

appropriate group of stakeholders.

PROFICIENT:

Advocates for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed toward an

appropriate group of stakeholders.

DISTINGUISHED:

Advocates for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed at an appropriate

group of stakeholders, and recommends criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of recommended action.

Comments:

For this criteria, you want to identify what the literature identifies regarding advocating for ethical action

with regards to underperforming benchmark.

What ethical action could be taken beyond the government?

Capella University Scoring Guide Tool https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails

5 of 7 11/22/2019, 3:44 PM

CRITERIA 5

Communicate evaluation and analysis in a professional and effective manner, writing

content clearly and logically, with correct use of grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

COMPETENCY

Apply various methods of communicating with policy makers, stakeholders, colleagues, and patients to

ensure that communication in a given situation is professional, clear, efficient, and effective.

NON_PERFORMANCE:

Does not communicate evaluation and analysis findings and recommendations in a professional and

effective manner; does not write content clearly and logically, and does not use correct grammar,

punctuation, and spelling.

BASIC:

Communicates evaluation and analysis findings and recommendations that are not consistently

professional, effective, clear, and logical, or that contain errors in use of grammar, punctuation, or

spelling that distract from the message.

PROFICIENT:

Communicates evaluation and analysis in a professional and effective manner, writing content clearly

and logically, with correct use of grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

DISTINGUISHED:

Communicates evaluation and analysis findings and recommendations that are professional, effective,

and insightful; the content is clear, logical, and persuasive; and grammar, punctuation, and spelling are

without errors.

Comments:

Errors in grammar and mechanics distract from the message. For instance "The too much workload in the

hospital has influenced potential staff members to avoid applying for vacancies in the hospital (Dowding,

2015)"

Capella University Scoring Guide Tool https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails

6 of 7 11/22/2019, 3:44 PM

CRITERIA 6

Integrate relevant sources to support arguments, correctly formatting citations and

references using current APA style.

COMPETENCY

Apply various methods of communicating with policy makers, stakeholders, colleagues, and patients to

ensure that communication in a given situation is professional, clear, efficient, and effective.

NON_PERFORMANCE:

Does not integrate relevant sources to support arguments; does not correctly format citations and

references using current APA style.

BASIC:

Cites sources that lack relevance or integrates them poorly, or formats citations or references

incorrectly.

PROFICIENT:

Integrates relevant sources to support arguments, correctly formatting citations and references using

current APA style.

DISTINGUISHED:

Integrates relevant sources to support arguments, correctly formatting citations and references using

current APA style. Citations are free from all errors.

Comments:

Errors in APA regarding citing factual material,headings and a conclusion are noted. Further integration of

sources would add clarity.

Capella University Scoring Guide Tool https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails

7 of 7 11/22/2019, 3:44 PM