| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| HCA-545 | HCA-545-O500 | Benchmark - Emergency Response Preparation | 150.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | 2: Less Than Satisfactory (74.00%) | 3: Satisfactory (79.00%) | 4: Good (87.00%) | 5: Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 75.0% |
| Workforce Training Emergency Response Drill | 15.0% | Discussion of a workforce training and emergency response drill is not included. | Discussion of a workforce training and emergency response drill is incomplete or incorrect. | Discussion of a workforce training and emergency response drill is included but lacks explanation and relevant supporting details. | Discussion of a workforce training and emergency response drill is complete and includes explanation and relevant supporting details. | Discussion of a workforce training and emergency response drill is thorough and includes substantial explanation and relevant supporting details. |
| Communication Planning and Command Center Organization (C3.3) | 12.0% | Discussion of communication planning and the command center organization is not included. | Discussion of communication planning and the command center organization, including the management of patient records, is incomplete or incorrect. | Discussion of communication planning and the command center organization, including the management of patient records, is included but lacks explanation and relevant supporting details. | Discussion of communication planning and the command center organization, including the management of patient records, is complete and includes explanation and relevant supporting details. | Discussion of communication planning and the command center organization, including the management of patient records, is thorough and includes substantial explanation and relevant supporting details. |
| Prioritization of Tasks During an Emergency | 12.0% | Discussion of the prioritization of tasks during an emergency is not included. | Discussion of the prioritization of tasks during an emergency is incomplete or incorrect. | Discussion of the prioritization of tasks during an emergency is included but lacks explanation and relevant supporting details. | Discussion of the prioritization of tasks during an emergency is complete and includes explanation and relevant supporting details. | Discussion of the prioritization of tasks during an emergency is thorough and includes substantial explanation and relevant supporting details. |
| Assigning Emergency Response Duties (C3.3) | 12.0% | Discussion of the process for assigning emergency response duties is not included. | Discussion of the process for assigning emergency response duties, including the impact on reporting, is incomplete or incorrect. | Discussion of the process for assigning emergency response duties, including the impact on reporting, is included but lacks explanation and relevant supporting details. | Discussion of the process for assigning emergency response duties, including the impact on reporting, is complete and includes explanation and relevant supporting details. | Discussion of the process for assigning emergency response duties, including the impact on reporting, is thorough and includes substantial explanation and relevant supporting details. |
| Coordination of Local, Regional, and Federal Health Agencies (C3.3) | 12.0% | Discussion of the process for coordinating local, regional, and federal health agencies is not included. | Discussion of the process for coordinating local, regional, and federal health agencies, including the impact on managing business processes, is incomplete or incorrect. | Discussion of the process for coordinating local, regional, and federal health agencies, including the impact on managing business processes, is included but lacks explanation and relevant supporting details. | Discussion of the process for coordinating local, regional, and federal health agencies, including the impact on managing business processes, is complete and includes explanation and relevant supporting details. | Discussion of the process for coordinating local, regional, and federal health agencies, including the impact on managing business processes, is thorough and includes substantial explanation and relevant supporting details. |
| Mitigating Fear and Panic of Staff and Community | 12.0% | Discussion of the plan to mitigate fear and panic of the staff and community is not included. | Discussion of the plan to mitigate fear and panic of the staff and community is incomplete or incorrect. | Discussion of the plan to mitigate fear and panic of the staff and community is included but lacks explanation and relevant supporting details. | Discussion of the plan to mitigate fear and panic of the staff and community is complete and includes explanation and relevant supporting details. | Discussion of the plan to mitigate fear and panic of the staff and community is thorough and includes substantial explanation and relevant supporting details. |
| Organization and Effectiveness | 15.0% |
| 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 progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | 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. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| Format | 10.0% |
| 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. | Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | 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. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
Gentle
Rubric_Print_Format7.xlsx
