The purpose of this assignment is to compare two models of health care. Choose a model, such as the holistic health or social model, to compare to the medical model. Refer to the study materials for information on available infographic tools.
Create an infographic to compare the two models, including the following criteria:
A description of the medical model, including access of care and satisfaction with care.
A description of the second model, including access of care, satisfaction with care, and the cost of care.
A list of the similarities between the two models.
A list of the differences between the two models.
In addition to your infographic, choose a patient population that would benefit from your selected model. Include a 300-500 word rationale for how this model would best serve that patient population. How would this be more beneficial than other models of care?
Submit your infographic and rationale as one deliverable into the assignment dropbox.
Support your writing with three to five scholarly peer-reviewed resources.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
Rubic_Print_Format
Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
HCA-515 HCA-515-O500 Health Care Model Infographic 120.0
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
Criteria 100.0%
Description of the First Medical Model 15.0% A description of the first chosen medical model, including access to and satisfaction with care, is not present. A description of the first chosen medical model, including access to and satisfaction with care, is incomplete or incorrect. A description of the first chosen medical model, including access to and satisfaction with care, is included but lacks supporting details. A description of the first chosen medical model, including access to and satisfaction with care, is complete and includes supporting details. A description of the first chosen medical model, including access to and satisfaction with care, is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting details.
Description of the Second Medical Model 15.0% A description of the second chosen medical model, including access to and satisfaction with care, is not present. A description of the second chosen medical model, including access to and satisfaction with care, is incomplete or incorrect. A description of the second chosen medical model, including access to and satisfaction with care, is included but lacks supporting details. A description of the second chosen medical model, including access to and satisfaction with care, is complete and includes supporting details. A description of the second chosen medical model, including access to and satisfaction with care, is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting details.
Similarities 5.0% A description of the similarities between the two medical models is not present. A description of the similarities between the two medical models is incomplete or incorrect. A description of the similarities between the two medical models is included but lacks supporting details. A description of the similarities between the two medical models is complete and includes supporting details. A description of the similarities between the two medical models is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting details.
Differences 5.0% A description of the differences between the two medical models is not present. A description of the differences between the two medical models is incomplete or incorrect. A description of the differences between the two medical models is included but lacks supporting details. A description of the differences between the two medical models is complete and includes supporting details. A description of the differences between the two medical models is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting details.
Rationale 15.0% A description of a chosen population and a rationale for how the model would best serve the population are not present. A description of a chosen population and a rationale for how the model would best serve the population are incomplete or incorrect. A description of a chosen population and a rationale for how the model would best serve the population are included but lack supporting details. A description of a chosen population and a rationale for how the model would best serve the population are complete and include supporting details. A description of a chosen population and a rationale for how the model would best serve the population are extremely thorough and include substantial supporting details.
Visual Appeal 10.0% There are few or no graphic elements. No variation in layout or typography is evident. Color is garish or typographic variations are overused and legibility suffers. Background interferes with readability. Understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships is limited. 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. Thematic graphic elements are used but 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. Appropriate and thematic graphic elements are used to make visual connections that contribute to the understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships. Differences in type size or color are used well and consistently.
Concepts 10.0% Main concept is not clearly identified, and subconcepts do not consistently branch from the main idea. Main concept is not clearly identified, and few subconcepts branch appropriately. Limited understanding of assignment is apparent. Main concept is easily identified, and few subconcepts branch from the main idea. Only a basic understanding of assignment is present. Main concept is easily identified and most subconcepts branch from the main idea. An original and creative concept fulfills the parameters of assignment. Main concept is easily identified, and subconcepts branch appropriately from the main idea. Projects exhibit the process of creative thinking and the development of an individual style.
Technical Skill 5.0% Execution does not meet the criteria outlined. Execution is sloppy and unprofessional. Execution needs improvement. Execution is of good quality. Execution is flawless. Demonstrates an in-depth, high-level of understanding.
Aesthetic Quality 4.0% Design is cluttered. Materials detract from the content or the purpose of presentation is low quality. Design detracts from purpose. Text and visuals are too simplistic, cluttered, and busy. Little or no creativity or inventiveness is present. Design is fairly clean, with a few exceptions. Materials add to, not detract from the presentation. Materials used were quality products and easy to see or hear. Design is appropriate and integrates a variety of objects, charts, and graphs to amplify the message. Design is clean. Skillful handling of text and visuals creates a distinctive and effective presentation. Overall, effective and functional audio, text, or visuals are evident.
Presentation 5.0% The submission is incoherent, contains major inconsistencies, is not presented effectively, or is missing a substantial amount of the required elements. The submission is ineffective, contains multiple inconsistencies, or is missing a few of the required elements. The submission contains minor inconsistencies that are not overly distracting. Presentation contains a majority of the required elements. The submission is presented effectively and contains all of the required elements. The submission is presented effectively and all of the required elements creatively contribute to the presentation of the concepts.
Originality 5.0% The work is an extensive collection and rehash of the ideas, products, images, or inventions of other people. There is no evidence of new thought or inventiveness. The work is a minimal collection or rehash of the ideas, products, images, or inventions of other people. There is no evidence of new thought. The product shows evidence of originality. While based on the ideas, products, images, or inventions of other people, the work does offer some new insights. The product shows evidence of originality and inventiveness. While based somewhat on the ideas, products, images, or inventions of other people, the work extends beyond that collection to offer new insights. The product shows significant evidence of originality and inventiveness. The majority of the content and many of the ideas are fresh, original, inventive, and based upon logical conclusions and sound research.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) 3.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed. 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. The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 3.0% 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%
