EMR Design

Funkychic1

RubricDetailBlackboardLearnProject.html

Home >Information Systems homework help >EMR Design

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.

Content

Name: CMIS_4302_Wk3_Group_Project_Rubric

	Mastery	Excellent	Competent	Developing	Deficient	Unsatisfactory	Not Submitted
Element 1: SWOT Analysis of OpenEMR Product	Points: 12 (20%) Group provides a thorough and detailed evaluation of the OpenEMR product by conducting a SWOT analysis identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to present his/her findings. There are no errors. Feedback:	Points: 11.4 (19%) Group provides a detailed evaluation of the OpenEMR product by conducting a SWOT analysis identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to present his/her findings. There are one or two minor errors or details missing. Feedback:	Points: 10.2 (17%) Group provides an evaluation of the OpenEMR product by conducting a SWOT analysis identifying some of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to present his/her findings. There are some errors or details missing. Feedback:	Points: 9 (15%) Group provides an evaluation of the OpenEMR product by conducting a SWOT analysis identifying few of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to present his/her findings. There are several errors or details missing. Feedback:	Points: 7.8 (13%) Group provides an evaluation of the OpenEMR product by conducting a SWOT analysis identifying vague or missing details of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and/or threats to present his/her findings. There are several missing components. Feedback:	Points: 3 (5%) Student provided an incomplete or cursory description that does not directly address this element and/or meet minimal requirements. Feedback:	Points: 0 (0%) Student did not submit this element. Feedback:
Element 2: Open Source Community	Points: 12 (20%) Group provides a thorough and detailed description of the value and limitations presented by the open source community. Several sources and examples support thinking. Feedback:	Points: 11.4 (19%) Group provides a detailed description of the value and limitations presented by the open source community. Several sources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors or details missing. Feedback:	Points: 10.2 (17%) Group provides a description with some details of the value and limitations presented by the open source community. Some sources and examples support thinking. Feedback:	Points: 9 (15%) Group provides a description with few details of the value and limitations presented by the open source community. Few sources and examples support thinking. Feedback:	Points: 7.8 (13%) Group provides a cursory or incomplete description with vague or missing details of the value and limitations presented by the open source community. No sources and examples support thinking. Feedback:	Points: 3 (5%) Group response is incomplete or cursory and does not directly address this element and/or meet minimal requirements. Feedback:	Points: 0 (0%) Student did not submit this element. Feedback:
Element 3: Local and Web-based Applications	Points: 12 (20%) Group response provides a thorough and detailed explanation of the differences between a local and a Web-based application thoroughly explaining how their uses affect the need for hardware, software, network components, and telecommunications access. Several sources and examples support thinking. Feedback:	Points: 11.4 (19%) Group response provides a detailed explanation of the differences between a local and a Web-based application thoroughly explaining how their uses affect the need for hardware, software, network components, and telecommunications access. Several sources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors. Feedback:	Points: 10.2 (17%) Group response provides an explanation of some of the differences between a local and a Web-based application explaining with some details how their uses affect the need for hardware, software, network components, and telecommunications access. Some sources or examples support thinking. Feedback:	Points: 9 (15%) Group response provides an explanation of few of the differences between a local and a Web-based application explaining with few details how their uses affect the need for hardware, software, network components, and telecommunications access. Few sources or examples support thinking. Feedback:	Points: 7.8 (13%) Group response provides a cursory or incomplete explanation of the differences between a local and a Web-based application and/or explaining with vague or missing details how their uses affect the need for hardware, software, network components, and telecommunications access. No sources or examples support thinking. Feedback:	Points: 3 (5%) Group response is incomplete or cursory and does not directly address this element and/or meet minimal requirements. Feedback:	Points: 0 (0%) Student did not submit this element. Feedback:
Element 4: Bandwidth Limitations	Points: 12 (20%) Group response provides a thorough and detailed explanation of bandwidth limitations and how they constrain the movement of medical records: POTS, ADSL, SDSL, T1, and Fiber. Several sources and examples support thinking. Feedback:	Points: 11.4 (19%) Group response provides a detailed explanation of bandwidth limitations and how they constrain the movement of medical records: POTS, ADSL, SDSL, T1, and Fiber. Several sources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors. Feedback:	Points: 10.2 (17%) Group response provides an explanation of bandwidth limitations and some details on how they constrain the movement of medical records: POTS, ADSL, SDSL, T1, and Fiber. Some sources or examples support thinking. Feedback:	Points: 9 (15%) Group response provides an explanation of bandwidth limitations and few details on how they constrain the movement of medical records: POTS, ADSL, SDSL, T1, and Fiber. Few sources or examples support thinking. Feedback:	Points: 7.8 (13%) Group response provides a cursory or incomplete explanation of bandwidth limitations and/or vague or missing details on how they constrain the movement of medical records: POTS, ADSL, SDSL, T1, and Fiber. No sources or examples support thinking. Feedback:	Points: 3 (5%) Group response is incomplete or cursory and does not directly address this element and/or meet minimal requirements. Feedback:	Points: 0 (0%) Student did not submit this element. Feedback:
Element 5: Description of Group Participation	Points: 6 (10%) Group submits a thorough and detailed description of the contributions made by each team member. Feedback:	Points: 5.7 (9.5%) Group submits a detailed description of the contributions made by each team member. Feedback:	Points: 5.1 (8.5%) Group submits a description of the contributions made by each team member. Feedback:	Points: 4.5 (7.5%) Group submits a description of the contributions made by each team member but not all group members are included in description. Feedback:	Points: 3.9 (6.5%) Group submits a cursory description with vague or missing details of the contributions made by each team member. Feedback:	Points: 1.5 (2.5%) Group submits a cursory description with few if any details of contributions made by each team member. Feedback:	Points: 0 (0%) Group did not submit the assignment or the submission fails to address this element. Feedback:
Element 6: Form and Style	Points: 6 (10%) Group submission is fully consistent with Academic Writing Expectations, well-organized, error-free, and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the audience and purpose of writing. The submission follows the APA standard for in-text citation and reference of sources including the use of page numbers or URLs. Feedback:	Points: 5.7 (9.5%) Group submission is fully consistent with Academic Writing Expectations, well-organized, and demonstrate a thorough understanding of the audience and purpose of writing. There are one or two grammatical or spelling errors. The submission follows the APA standard for in-text citation and reference of sources including the use of page numbers or URLs. Feedback:	Points: 5.1 (8.5%) Group submission adheres to the Academic Writing Expectations and is well-organized. There are a few grammatical or spelling errors. All included references in the submission follow the APA standard for in-text citation and reference of sources including the use of page numbers or URLs. Feedback:	Points: 4.5 (7.5%) Group submission inconsistently applies the Academic Writing Expectations. There are several grammatical or spelling errors. Included references in the submission inconsistently follow the APA standard for in-text citations and reference of sources. Feedback:	Points: 3.9 (6.5%) Group submission does not adhere to the Academic Writing Expectations. There are numerous grammatical or spelling errors. Included references in the submission do not follow the APA standard for reference of sources. Feedback:	Points: 1.5 (2.5%) Group submission does not adhere to the Academic Writing Expectations. Submission includes numerous errors and is difficult to read. Feedback:	Points: 0 (0%) Group did not submit the assignment or the submission fails to address this element. Feedback:

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

Element 1: SWOT Analysis of OpenEMR Product--

Levels of Achievement: Mastery 12 (20%) points Group provides a thorough and detailed evaluation of the OpenEMR product by conducting a SWOT analysis identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to present his/her findings. There are no errors. Excellent 11.4 (19%) points Group provides a detailed evaluation of the OpenEMR product by conducting a SWOT analysis identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to present his/her findings. There are one or two minor errors or details missing. Competent 10.2 (17%) points Group provides an evaluation of the OpenEMR product by conducting a SWOT analysis identifying some of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to present his/her findings. There are some errors or details missing. Developing 9 (15%) points Group provides an evaluation of the OpenEMR product by conducting a SWOT analysis identifying few of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to present his/her findings. There are several errors or details missing. Deficient 7.8 (13%) points Group provides an evaluation of the OpenEMR product by conducting a SWOT analysis identifying vague or missing details of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and/or threats to present his/her findings. There are several missing components. Unsatisfactory 3 (5%) points Student provided an incomplete or cursory description that does not directly address this element and/or meet minimal requirements. Not Submitted 0 (0%) points Student did not submit this element. Feedback:

Element 2: Open Source Community--

Levels of Achievement: Mastery 12 (20%) points Group provides a thorough and detailed description of the value and limitations presented by the open source community. Several sources and examples support thinking. Excellent 11.4 (19%) points Group provides a detailed description of the value and limitations presented by the open source community. Several sources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors or details missing. Competent 10.2 (17%) points Group provides a description with some details of the value and limitations presented by the open source community. Some sources and examples support thinking. Developing 9 (15%) points Group provides a description with few details of the value and limitations presented by the open source community. Few sources and examples support thinking. Deficient 7.8 (13%) points Group provides a cursory or incomplete description with vague or missing details of the value and limitations presented by the open source community. No sources and examples support thinking. Unsatisfactory 3 (5%) points Group response is incomplete or cursory and does not directly address this element and/or meet minimal requirements. Not Submitted 0 (0%) points Student did not submit this element. Feedback:

Element 3: Local and Web-based Applications--

Levels of Achievement: Mastery 12 (20%) points Group response provides a thorough and detailed explanation of the differences between a local and a Web-based application thoroughly explaining how their uses affect the need for hardware, software, network components, and telecommunications access. Several sources and examples support thinking. Excellent 11.4 (19%) points Group response provides a detailed explanation of the differences between a local and a Web-based application thoroughly explaining how their uses affect the need for hardware, software, network components, and telecommunications access. Several sources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors. Competent 10.2 (17%) points Group response provides an explanation of some of the differences between a local and a Web-based application explaining with some details how their uses affect the need for hardware, software, network components, and telecommunications access. Some sources or examples support thinking. Developing 9 (15%) points Group response provides an explanation of few of the differences between a local and a Web-based application explaining with few details how their uses affect the need for hardware, software, network components, and telecommunications access. Few sources or examples support thinking. Deficient 7.8 (13%) points Group response provides a cursory or incomplete explanation of the differences between a local and a Web-based application and/or explaining with vague or missing details how their uses affect the need for hardware, software, network components, and telecommunications access. No sources or examples support thinking. Unsatisfactory 3 (5%) points Group response is incomplete or cursory and does not directly address this element and/or meet minimal requirements. Not Submitted 0 (0%) points Student did not submit this element. Feedback:

Element 4: Bandwidth Limitations--

Levels of Achievement: Mastery 12 (20%) points Group response provides a thorough and detailed explanation of bandwidth limitations and how they constrain the movement of medical records: POTS, ADSL, SDSL, T1, and Fiber. Several sources and examples support thinking. Excellent 11.4 (19%) points Group response provides a detailed explanation of bandwidth limitations and how they constrain the movement of medical records: POTS, ADSL, SDSL, T1, and Fiber. Several sources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors. Competent 10.2 (17%) points Group response provides an explanation of bandwidth limitations and some details on how they constrain the movement of medical records: POTS, ADSL, SDSL, T1, and Fiber. Some sources or examples support thinking. Developing 9 (15%) points Group response provides an explanation of bandwidth limitations and few details on how they constrain the movement of medical records: POTS, ADSL, SDSL, T1, and Fiber. Few sources or examples support thinking. Deficient 7.8 (13%) points Group response provides a cursory or incomplete explanation of bandwidth limitations and/or vague or missing details on how they constrain the movement of medical records: POTS, ADSL, SDSL, T1, and Fiber. No sources or examples support thinking. Unsatisfactory 3 (5%) points Group response is incomplete or cursory and does not directly address this element and/or meet minimal requirements. Not Submitted 0 (0%) points Student did not submit this element. Feedback:

Element 5: Description of Group Participation--

Levels of Achievement: Mastery 6 (10%) points Group submits a thorough and detailed description of the contributions made by each team member. Excellent 5.7 (9.5%) points Group submits a detailed description of the contributions made by each team member. Competent 5.1 (8.5%) points Group submits a description of the contributions made by each team member. Developing 4.5 (7.5%) points Group submits a description of the contributions made by each team member but not all group members are included in description. Deficient 3.9 (6.5%) points Group submits a cursory description with vague or missing details of the contributions made by each team member. Unsatisfactory 1.5 (2.5%) points Group submits a cursory description with few if any details of contributions made by each team member. Not Submitted 0 (0%) points Group did not submit the assignment or the submission fails to address this element. Feedback:

Element 6: Form and Style--

Levels of Achievement: Mastery 6 (10%) points Group submission is fully consistent with Academic Writing Expectations, well-organized, error-free, and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the audience and purpose of writing. The submission follows the APA standard for in-text citation and reference of sources including the use of page numbers or URLs. Excellent 5.7 (9.5%) points Group submission is fully consistent with Academic Writing Expectations, well-organized, and demonstrate a thorough understanding of the audience and purpose of writing. There are one or two grammatical or spelling errors. The submission follows the APA standard for in-text citation and reference of sources including the use of page numbers or URLs. Competent 5.1 (8.5%) points Group submission adheres to the Academic Writing Expectations and is well-organized. There are a few grammatical or spelling errors. All included references in the submission follow the APA standard for in-text citation and reference of sources including the use of page numbers or URLs. Developing 4.5 (7.5%) points Group submission inconsistently applies the Academic Writing Expectations. There are several grammatical or spelling errors. Included references in the submission inconsistently follow the APA standard for in-text citations and reference of sources. Deficient 3.9 (6.5%) points Group submission does not adhere to the Academic Writing Expectations. There are numerous grammatical or spelling errors. Included references in the submission do not follow the APA standard for reference of sources. Unsatisfactory 1.5 (2.5%) points Group submission does not adhere to the Academic Writing Expectations. Submission includes numerous errors and is difficult to read. Not Submitted 0 (0%) points Group did not submit the assignment or the submission fails to address this element. Feedback: