Quality in Health Care

8/22/25, 6:37 PM

Page 1 of 2about:srcdoc

Quality in Health Care - Rubric Total 90 points

Criterion 1. Unsatisfactory 2. Insufficient 3. Approaching 4. Acceptable 5. Target

Implementation and

Necessity of Quality

Improvement in Health

Care

Implementation and

Necessity of Quality

Improvement in Health

Care

0 points

A discussion about the

implementation and

necessity of quality

improvement in health

care is not included.

8.78 points

A discussion about the

implementation and

necessity of quality

improvement in health

care is partially

incorporated, but the

information provided is

incomplete, inaccurate, or

otherwise deficient.

10.13 points

A discussion about the

implementation and

necessity of quality

improvement in health

care is present, but

minimal detail or support

is provided.

11.48 points

A discussion about the

implementation and

necessity of quality

improvement in health

care is provided, with

appropriate details and

support.

13.5 points

A discussion about the

implementation and

necessity of quality

improvement in health

care is thoroughly explored

and clearly explained with

relevant details and

support.

Evolution of Continuous

Quality Improvement

Efforts

Evolution of Continuous

Quality Improvement

Efforts

0 points

A discussion about the

evolution of continuous

quality improvement

efforts is not included.

8.78 points

A discussion about the

evolution of continuous

quality improvement

efforts is partially

incorporated, but the

information provided is

incomplete, inaccurate, or

otherwise deficient.

10.13 points

A discussion about the

evolution of continuous

quality improvement

efforts is present, but

minimal detail or support

is provided.

11.48 points

A discussion about the

evolution of continuous

quality improvement

efforts is provided, with

appropriate details and

support.

13.5 points

A discussion about the

evolution of continuous

quality improvement

efforts is thoroughly

explored and clearly

explained with relevant

details and support.

Distinguishing

Characteristics of

Continuous Quality

Improvement in Relation

to Quality Assurance

Distinguishing

Characteristics of

Continuous Quality

Improvement in Relation to

Quality Assurance

0 points

A discussion about the

distinguishing

characteristics of

continuous quality

improvement in relation to

quality assurance is not

included.

5.85 points

A discussion about the

distinguishing

characteristics of

continuous quality

improvement in relation to

quality assurance is

partially incorporated, but

the information provided is

incomplete, inaccurate, or

otherwise deficient.

6.75 points

A discussion about the

distinguishing

characteristics of

continuous quality

improvement in relation to

quality assurance is

present, but minimal detail

or support is provided.

7.65 points

A discussion about the

distinguishing

characteristics of

continuous quality

improvement in relation to

quality assurance is

provided, with appropriate

details and support.

9 points

A discussion about the

distinguishing

characteristics of

continuous quality

improvement in relation to

quality assurance is

thoroughly explored and

clearly explained with

relevant details and

support.

Cross-Disciplinary

Thinking and Its

Evolution in a Continuous

Quality Improvement

Cross-Disciplinary Thinking

and Its Evolution in a

Continuous Quality

Improvement Within a

Health Care Context

0 points

A discussion about cross-

disciplinary thinking and its

evolution in a continuous

quality improvement within

a health care context is not

included.

5.85 points

A discussion about cross-

disciplinary thinking and its

evolution in a continuous

quality improvement within

a health care context is

partially incorporated, but

the information provided is

incomplete, inaccurate, or

otherwise deficient.

6.75 points

A discussion about cross-

disciplinary thinking and its

evolution in a continuous

quality improvement within

a health care context is

present, but minimal detail

or support is provided.

7.65 points

A discussion about cross-

disciplinary thinking and its

evolution in a continuous

quality improvement within

a health care context is

provided, with appropriate

details and support.

9 points

A discussion about cross-

disciplinary thinking and its

evolution in a continuous

quality improvement within

a health care context is

thoroughly explored and

clearly explained with

relevant details and

support.

Scientific Method of

Continuous Quality

Improvement

Scientific Method of

Continuous Quality

Improvement

0 points

A discussion about the

scientific method of

continuous quality

improvement, as well as

the hypothetical scenario

when application of this

method would be

advantageous, is not

included.

5.85 points

A discussion about the

scientific method of

continuous quality

improvement, as well as

the hypothetical scenario

when application of this

method would be

advantageous, is partially

incorporated, but the

information provided is

incomplete, inaccurate, or

otherwise deficient.

6.75 points

A discussion about the

scientific method of

continuous quality

improvement, as well as

the hypothetical scenario

when application of this

method would be

advantageous, is present,

but minimal detail or

support is provided.

7.65 points

A discussion about the

scientific method of

continuous quality

improvement, as well as

the hypothetical scenario

when application of this

method would be

advantageous, is provided,

with appropriate details

and support.

9 points

A discussion about the

scientific method of

continuous quality

improvement, as well as

the hypothetical scenario

when application of this

method would be

advantageous, is

thoroughly explored and

clearly explained with

relevant details and

support.

Predictions for the

Future of Continuous

Quality Improvement

0 points

Predictions for the future

8.78 points

Predictions for the future

10.13 points

Predictions for the future

11.48 points

Predictions for the future

13.5 points

Predictions for the future

8/22/25, 6:37 PM

Page 2 of 2about:srcdoc

Predictions for the Future

of Continuous Quality

Improvement

of continuous quality

improvement are not

included.

of continuous quality

improvement are partially

incorporated, but the

information provided is

incomplete, inaccurate, or

otherwise deficient.

of continuous quality

improvement are present,

but minimal detail or

support is provided.

of continuous quality

improvement are provided,

with appropriate details

and support.

of continuous quality

improvement are

thoroughly explored and

clearly explained with

relevant details and

support.

Speaker Notes

Speaker Notes

0 points

Speaker notes are not

included.

2.93 points

Speaker notes are

incomplete or incorrect.

3.38 points

Speaker notes are included

but lack explanation and

relevant supporting details.

3.82 points

Speaker notes are

complete and include

explanation and relevant

supporting details.

4.5 points

Speaker notes are

thorough and include

substantial explanation

and relevant supporting

details.

Visual Appeal

Visual Appeal

0 points

Not addressed.

2.93 points

There are no or few

graphic elements. No

variation in layout or

typography is evident.

3.38 points

Minimal use of graphic

elements is evident.

Elements do not

consistently contribute to

the understanding of

concepts, ideas, and

relationships. There is

some variation in type size,

color, and layout.

3.82 points

Thematic graphic elements

are used but are not

always in context. Visual

connections mostly

contribute to the

understanding of concepts,

ideas, and relationships.

Differences in type size or

color are used well and

consistently.

4.5 points

The slide digital

presentation is visually

pleasing for the audience.

There is a good variety and

use of graphics, colors, and

fonts. The arrangement of

material is logically

organized for presentation.

Organization

Organization

0 points

No apparent connections

between ideas are

established. Transitions are

inappropriate to purpose

and scope. Organization is

disjointed.

2.93 points

An attempt is made to

organize the content, but

the sequence is

indiscernible. The ideas

presented are

compartmentalized and

may not relate to each

other, or the summary is

widely outside of the

required word count.

3.38 points

The content is not

adequately organized even

though it provides the

audience with a sense of

the main idea. The

summary may not be

within a reasonable range

of the required word

count.

3.82 points

The content is logically

organized. The ideas

presented relate to each

other. The content

provides the audience with

a clear sense of the main

idea. The summary is

within a reasonable range

of the required word

count.

4.5 points

The content is well-

organized and logical.

There is a sequential

progression of ideas that

relate to each other. The

content is presented as a

cohesive unit and provides

the audience with a clear

sense of the main idea. The

summary is within the

required word count.

Mechanics of Writing

Includes spelling,

capitalization, punctuation,

grammar, language use,

sentence structure, etc.

0 points

Errors in grammar or

syntax are pervasive and

impede meaning. Incorrect

language choice or

sentence structure errors

are found throughout.

2.93 points

Frequent and repetitive

mechanical errors are

present. Inconsistencies in

language choice or

sentence structure are

recurrent.

3.38 points

Occasional mechanical

errors are present.

Language choice is

generally appropriate.

Varied sentence structure

is attempted.

3.82 points

Few mechanical errors are

present. Suitable language

choice and sentence

structure are used.

4.5 points

No mechanical errors are

present. Appropriate

language choice and

sentence structure are

used throughout.

Format/Documentation

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.

0 points

Appropriate format is not

used. No documentation of

sources is provided.

2.93 points

Appropriate format is

attempted, but some

elements are missing.

Frequent errors in

documentation of sources

are evident.

3.38 points

Appropriate format and

documentation are used,

although there are some

obvious errors.

3.82 points

Appropriate format and

documentation are used,

with only minor errors.

4.5 points

No errors in formatting or

documentation are

present.

© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.