OM009: Data-driven Decision making

OM009_Rubric.pdf

Home >Information Systems homework help >OM009: Data-driven Decision making

OM009: Data-Driven Decision Making: Evaluate clinical and administrative data to support evidence-based decisions that affect healthcare organizations and patient care.

Assessment Rubric

Rubric Criteria

Needs Improvement

Meets Expectations

Exceeds Expectations Part 1: Introduction Learning Objective 1.1:

Define evidence- based decision making.

Presentation does not define inaccurately or incompletely defines evidence-based decision making. Definition is not supported by academic/professional resources or the resources are not relevant. Response does not include references to academic/professional resources, or the resources are not relevant.

Presentation accurately and thoroughly defines evidence- based decision making. Definition is supported by relevant academic/professional resources.

Presentation demonstrates the same level of achievement as “Meets,” plus the following: Presentation clearly defines evidence-based decision making using a specific example of evidence-based decision making from an authentic healthcare setting.

Learning Objective 1.2

Explain the relevance of evidence-based decision making in the healthcare industry.

Presentation does not explain, inaccurately or incompletely explains the relevance of evidence-based decision making in the healthcare industry. Explanation is not supported by academic/professional resources or the resources are not relevant.

Presentation accurately and thoroughly explains the relevance of evidence-based decision making in the healthcare industry. Explanation is supported by relevant academic/professional resources.

Presentation demonstrates the same level of achievement as “Meets,” plus the following: Presentation provides one example that illustrates the relevance of evidence- based decision making in an authentic healthcare setting.

Rubric Criteria

Needs Improvement

Meets Expectations

Exceeds Expectations

Part 2: Recommendation and Rationale Learning Objective 2.1: Analyze options to resolve issues in an ICU.

Presentation does not provide or provides an unclear or inaccurate analysis of the issues in an ICU. .

Presentation clearly defines the issues in an ICU and offers three options to resolve them.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “Meets,” plus the following: Presentation explains which evidence was the most compelling in defining the problem and analyzing the issues of the ICU.

Learning Objective 2.2: Recommend potential options to resolve issues in an ICU.

Presentation does not recommend or recommends an illogical option for the lack of additional beds and fewer than two logical options for additional beds or the options for additional beds are illogical. Presenter includes vague support from the facts given in the case study and/or illogical evidence from academic/professional resources.

Presentation provides one logical option for no additional beds and two logical options for additional beds. Presenter includes detailed empirical support from the facts given in the case study and evidence from relevant academic/professional resources.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “Meets,” plus the following: Presentation provides a clear explanation of the benefits and challenges for each of the three options.

Learning Objective 2.3 Compare data over time to support recommendations.

Graphic comparison between the current state of the ICU versus the remote monitoring ICU implementation in 5 years is missing, inaccurate, or unclear. Presenter does not include detailed empirical support from the facts

Graphic comparison between the current state of the ICU versus the remote monitoring ICU implementation in 5 years is accurate and clear. Presenter includes detailed empirical support from the

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “Meets,” plus the following: Graphic comparison addresses the current state of the ICU vs the

given in the case study and evidence from relevant academic/professional resources.

facts given in the case study and evidence from relevant academic/professional resources.

remote monitoring ICU implementation over 10 years.

Learning Objective 2.4 Explain the impact of recommendations on staffing, productivity, competitiveness, and finances.

Presentation does not provide or provides an illogical or inaccurate explanation of the impact of the recommendation on staffing, productivity, competitiveness, or finances. Explanation excludes the appropriate qualitative or quantitative data used in the analysis, or the qualitative and quantitative data is included inaccurately or inappropriately in the analysis. The presenter does not include detailed empirical support from the facts given in the case study.

Presentation logically explains the impact of the recommendation on staffing, productivity, competitiveness, and finances. Explanation includes the appropriate qualitative and quantitative data used in the analysis. The presenter includes detailed empirical support from the facts given in the case study.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “Meets,” plus the following: Explanation of the impact of the recommendation on staffing, productivity, competitiveness, and finances is supported by least two or more academic resources.

Rubric Criteria Needs Improvement Meets Expectations Exceeds Expectations

Part 3: Evidence Evaluation Learning Objective 3.1:

Summarize evidence used in developing an opportunity

Presentation does not include or includes a verbose, unclear or inaccurate summary of the evidence used in developing an opportunity statement and recommendation.

Presentation provides a summary that is succinct in explaining the evidence used to develop an opportunity statement and recommendation.

Presentation demonstrates the same level of achievement as “Meets,” plus the following:

statement and recommendation.

Summary describes two or more pieces of data used in the recommendation and explains why they were used.

Learning Objective 3.2 Describe why evidence is relevant to patients, the community, and the hospital.

Presentation does not describe, vaguely or inaccurately describes why each piece of evidence is relevant to patients, the community, and the hospital. Or presentation describes why some but not all pieces of evidence is relevant to patients, the community. or the hospital but not all three.

Presentation clearly and accurately describes why each piece of evidence is relevant to patients, the community, and the hospital.

Presentation demonstrates the same level of achievement as “Meets,” plus the following: Presentation clearly and accurately describes how each piece of the evidence is relevant or impactful to the healthcare continuum beyond the immediate community.

Learning Objective 3.3:

Summarize the analysis used to create the recommendations.

Presentation does not provide or provides an incomplete or inaccurate summary of the analysis used to create the recommendation.

Presentation provides a thorough and valid summary of the analysis used to create the recommendation. Summary cites a peer- reviewed study that support the analysis used to create the recommendation.

Presentation demonstrates the same level of achievement as “Meets,” plus the following: Summary cites three peer- reviewed studies that support the analysis used to create the recommendation.

Learning Objective 3.4

Presentation does not provide or provides an unclear evaluation of the validity and reliability of each piece of data provided in the scenario.

Presentation provides a clear evaluation of the validity and reliability of each piece of data provided in the scenario.

Response demonstrates the same level of achievement as “Meets,” plus the following:

Evaluate the validity and reliability of data.

Presentation includes data that were not considered valid and reliable and explains why they were not used in the recommendations.