Assigment .Apa seven . All instructions attached.

The purpose of this assignment is to analyze how an organization's quality and improvement processes contribute to its risk management program.

This assignment builds on the concepts from the Topic 1 benchmark assignment.

Assume that the sample risk management program you analyzed in Topic 1 was implemented and is now currently in use by your health care organization. Further assume that your supervisor has asked you to create a high‐level report of this new risk management program to share with a group of administrative personnel from a newly created community health organization in your state who have enlisted your organization's assistance in developing their own risk management policies and procedures.

In a 1,000‐word report, address the following points regarding your health care organization and its risk management program:

· Explain the role of your organization's Medicare Improvement for Patients and Provider Act (MIPPA)-approved accreditation body (e.g., JC, ACR, IAC) in the evaluation of your institution's quality improvement and risk management processes.

· Describe the roles that different levels of administrative personnel play in health care ethics and establishing or sustaining employer- and employee-focused organizational risk management strategies and operational policies.

· Explain how your organization's risk management and compliance programs support ethical standards, patient consent, informed consent, and patient rights and responsibilities.

· Explain the legal and ethical responsibilities health care professionals face in upholding risk management policies and administering safe health care at your organization.

· Explain how your organization's quality improvement processes support and contribute to the prevention of sentinel events and to its overall journey to excellence.

· Communicate how to integrate the Christian perspective of human value and dignity, along with ethical decision-making as it relates to patients, families, and health care employees

In addition to your textbook and the GCU "Statement on the Integration of Faith and Work," you are required to support your analysis with at least three credible health-related resources.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Rubric Criteria

collapse all Rubric CriteriaCollapse All

Role of the MIPPA

24 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of the role of the organization's Medicare Improvement for Patients and Provider Act (MIPPA)-approved accreditation body in the evaluation of the institution's quality improvement and risk management processes.

5. Target

24 points

Explanation of the role of the organization's Medicare Improvement for Patients and Provider Act (MIPPA)-approved accreditation body in the evaluation of the institution's quality improvement and risk management processes is comprehensive. The submission encompasses essential details and provides convincing support.

4. Acceptable

20.4 points

Explanation of the role of the organization's Medicare Improvement for Patients and Provider Act (MIPPA)-approved accreditation body in the evaluation of the institution's quality improvement and risk management processes is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses basic details and provides appropriate support.

3. Approaching

18 points

Explanation of the role of the organization's Medicare Improvement for Patients and Provider Act (MIPPA)-approved accreditation body in the evaluation of the institution's quality improvement and risk management processes is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.

2. Insufficient

15.6 points

Explanation of the role of the organization's Medicare Improvement for Patients and Provider Act (MIPPA)-approved accreditation body in the evaluation of the institution's quality improvement and risk management processes is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Explanation of the role of the organization's Medicare Improvement for Patients and Provider Act (MIPPA)-approved accreditation body in the evaluation of the institution's quality improvement and risk management processes is not included.

Administrative Roles

24 points

Criteria Description

Administrative Roles Description of the roles that different levels of administrative personnel play in health care ethics and establishing or sustaining employer- and employee-focused organizational risk management strategies and operational policies.

5. Target

24 points

Description of the roles that different levels of administrative personnel play in health care ethics and establishing or sustaining employer- and employee-focused organizational risk management strategies and operational policies is comprehensive. The submission encompasses essential details and provides convincing support.

4. Acceptable

20.4 points

Description of the roles that different levels of administrative personnel play in health care ethics and establishing or sustaining employer- and employee-focused organizational risk management strategies and operational policies is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses basic details and provides appropriate support.

3. Approaching

18 points

Description of the roles that different levels of administrative personnel play in health care ethics and establishing or sustaining employer- and employee-focused organizational risk management strategies and operational policies is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.

2. Insufficient

15.6 points

Description of the roles that different levels of administrative personnel play in health care ethics and establishing or sustaining employer- and employee-focused organizational risk management strategies and operational policies is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Description of the roles that different levels of administrative personnel play in health care ethics and establishing or sustaining employer- and employee-focused organizational risk management strategies and operational policies is not included.

Ethical Standards, Patient Consent, Informed Consent, and Patient Rights and Responsibilities

24 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of how risk management of the organization and compliance programs support ethical standards, patient consent, informed consent, and patient rights and responsibilities.

5. Target

24 points

Explanation of how the organization's risk management and compliance programs support ethical standards, patient consent, informed consent, and patient rights and responsibilities is comprehensive. The submission encompasses essential details and provides convincing support.

4. Acceptable

20.4 points

Explanation of how the organization's risk management and compliance programs support ethical standards, patient consent, informed consent, and patient rights and responsibilities is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses basic details and provides appropriate support.

3. Approaching

18 points

Explanation of how the organization's risk management and compliance programs support ethical standards, patient consent, informed consent, and patient rights and responsibilities is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.

2. Insufficient

15.6 points

Explanation of how the organization's risk management and compliance programs support ethical standards, patient consent, informed consent, and patient rights and responsibilities is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Explanation of how the organization's risk management and compliance programs support ethical standards, patient consent, informed consent, and patient rights and responsibilities is not included.

Legal and Ethical Responsibilities of Health Care Professionals (B) (B)

24 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities health care professionals face in upholding risk management policies and administering safe health care at the organization. (C3.3) (C3.3)

5. Target

24 points

Explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities health care professionals face in upholding risk management policies and administering safe health care at the organization is comprehensive. The submission encompasses essential details and provides convincing support.

4. Acceptable

20.4 points

Explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities health care professionals face in upholding risk management policies and administering safe health care at the organization is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses basic details and provides appropriate support.

3. Approaching

18 points

Explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities health care professionals face in upholding risk management policies and administering safe health care at the organization is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.

2. Insufficient

15.6 points

Explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities health care professionals face in upholding risk management policies and administering safe health care at the organization is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities health care professionals face in upholding risk management policies and administering safe health care at the organization is not included.

Quality Improvement Processes in a Health Care Organization

24 points

Criteria Description

Explanation of how the organization's quality improvement processes support and contribute to the prevention of sentinel events and to its overall journey to excellence

5. Target

24 points

Explanation of how organization's quality improvement processes support and contribute to the prevention of sentinel events and to its overall journey to excellence is comprehensive. The submission encompasses essential details and provides convincing support.

4. Acceptable

20.4 points

Explanation of how the organization's quality improvement processes support and contribute to the prevention of sentinel events and to its overall journey to excellence is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses basic details and provides appropriate support.

3. Approaching

18 points

Explanation of how the organization's quality improvement processes support and contribute to the prevention of sentinel events and to its overall journey to excellence is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.

2. Insufficient

15.6 points

Explanation of how the organization's quality improvement processes support and contribute to the prevention of sentinel events and to its overall journey to excellence is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Explanation of how the organization's quality improvement processes support and contribute to the prevention of sentinel events and to its overall journey to excellence is not included.

Christian Perspective of Human Value and Dignity, Along With Ethical Decision-Making

20 points

Criteria Description

Communication of how to integrate the Christian perspective of human value and dignity, along with ethical decision-making as it relates to patients, families, and health care workers.

5. Target

20 points

Communication of how to integrate the Christian perspective of human value and dignity, along with ethical decision-making as it relates to patients, families, and health care workers, is comprehensive. The submission encompasses essential details and provides convincing support.

4. Acceptable

17 points

Communication of how to integrate the Christian perspective of human value and dignity, along with ethical decision-making as it relates to patients, families, and health care workers, is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses basic details and provides appropriate support.

3. Approaching

15 points

Communication of how to integrate the Christian perspective of human value and dignity, along with ethical decision-making as it relates to patients, families, and health care workers, is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.

2. Insufficient

13 points

Communication of how to integrate the Christian perspective of human value and dignity, along with ethical decision-making as it relates to patients, families, and health care workers, is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Communication of how to integrate the Christian perspective of human value and dignity, along with ethical decision-making as it relates to patients, families, and health care workers, is not included.

Thesis, Position, or Purpose

14 points

Criteria Description

Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.

5. Target

14 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.

4. Acceptable

11.9 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately presented. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.

3. Approaching

10.5 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.

2. Insufficient

9.1 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is unfocused or confused. There is very little awareness of the intended audience.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.

Development, Structure, and Conclusion

14 points

Criteria Description

Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.

5. Target

14 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and logical conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

4. Acceptable

11.9 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

3. Approaching

10.5 points

Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.

2. Insufficient

9.1 points

Writing lacks logical progression of the thesis, position, or purpose. Some organization is attempted, but ideas are disconnected. Conclusion is unclear and not supported by the overall development of the purpose.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.

Evidence

12 points

Criteria Description

Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.

5. Target

12 points

Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Relevant perspectives of others are clearly considered.

4. Acceptable

10.2 points

Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.

3. Approaching

9 points

Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.

2. Insufficient

7.8 points

Evidence is limited or irrelevant. The interpretation of other perspectives is superficial or incorrect.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.

Mechanics of Writing

12 points

Criteria Description

Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.

5. Target

12 points

No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.

4. Acceptable

10.2 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.

3. Approaching

9 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2. Insufficient

7.8 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.

Format/Documentation

8 points

Criteria Description

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.

5. Target

8 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present.

4. Acceptable

6.8 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

3. Approaching

6 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.

2. Insufficient

5.2 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.