Chat with us, powered by LiveChat NUR-630Rubric-Benchmark-Hospital-AssociatedInfectionsData.pdf - STUDENT SOLUTION USA

Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data – Rubric

Conclusions 9.6 points

Criteria Description

Conclusions

5. Target 9.6 points

Conclusions that can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period are

appropriate. The conclusions are supported by the data.

4. Acceptable 8.83 points

Conclusions that can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period are

appropriate. The conclusions are mostly supported with data.

3. Approaching 8.45 points

Conclusions that can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period are

present.

2. Insufficient 7.68 points

Conclusions that can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period are

present, but the conclusions are not supported with data.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Conclusions that can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period are

not present.

Trends 9.6 points

Criteria Description

Trends

5. Target 9.6 points

A description of the trends that can be seen in the data is present. The trends

discussed are accurate.

4. Acceptable 8.83 points

Collapse All

A description of the trends that can be seen in the data is present. The trends

discussed are mostly accurate.

3. Approaching 8.45 points

A description of the trends that can be seen in the data is present.

2. Insufficient 7.68 points

A description of the trends that can be seen in the data is present, but lacks detail

or is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

A description of the trends that can be seen in the data is not present.

Quality Measure and National Benchmarks 7.2 points

Criteria Description

Quality Measure and National Benchmarks

5. Target 7.2 points

A comparison of each quality measure to the national benchmark is present and all

comparisons are accurate.

4. Acceptable 6.62 points

NA

3. Approaching 6.34 points

NA

2. Insufficient 5.76 points

A comparison of each quality measure to the national benchmark is present, but

some comparisons are not accurate.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

A comparison of each quality measure to the national benchmark is not present.

Prioritization of Quality Measures 7.2 points

Criteria Description

Prioritization of Quality Measures

5. Target 7.2 points

Prioritization of the quality measures is present and is appropriate based on the

data.

4. Acceptable 6.62 points

NA

3. Approaching 6.34 points

NA

2. Insufficient 5.76 points

Prioritization of the quality measures is present, but is not appropriate based on

the data.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Prioritization of Quality Measures

Quality Improvement Metric 7.2 points

Criteria Description

Quality Improvement Metric

5. Target 7.2 points

A quality improvement metric is present and thorough. The metric is appropriate

for the quality measure.

4. Acceptable 6.62 points

A quality improvement metric is present and detailed. The metric is mostly

appropriate for the quality measure.

3. Approaching 6.34 points

A quality improvement metric is present.

2. Insufficient 5.76 points

A quality improvement metric is present, but some portions may not be

appropriate for the quality measure.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

A quality improvement metric is not present.

Monitoring the Quality Improvement Metric (B) 7.2 points

Criteria Description

Monitoring the Quality Improvement Metric (C6.6)

5. Target 7.2 points

An explanation of how to monitor the metric and related measures to improve care

processes, outcomes, and the patient experience is present and thorough.

4. Acceptable 6.62 points

An explanation of how to monitor the metric and related measures to improve care

processes, outcomes, and the patient experience is present and detailed.

3. Approaching 6.34 points

An explanation of how to monitor the metric and related measures to improve care

processes, outcomes, and the patient experience is present.

2. Insufficient 5.76 points

An explanation of how to monitor the metric and related measures to improve care

processes, outcomes, and the patient experience is present, but lacks detail or is

incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

An explanation of how to monitor the metric and related measures to improve care

processes, outcomes, and the patient experience is not present.

Presentation of Content 36 points

Criteria Description

Presentation of Content

5. Target 36 points

The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and relate to

each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers.

The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.

4. Acceptable 33.12 points

The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting

information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive

information from reliable sources.

3. Approaching 31.68 points

The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some

inconsistency in organization or in their relationships to each other.

2. Insufficient 28.8 points

The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong

sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Includes

little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear.

Layout 12 points

Criteria Description

Layout

5. Target 12 points

The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with

appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in

length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance

the readability of the text.

4. Acceptable 11.04 points

The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to

be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for

headings and text.

3. Approaching 10.56 points

The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes the

fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long

paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability.

2. Insufficient 9.6 points

The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and busy or distracting

with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is

difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy

background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and

subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read with

long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting colors.

Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident.

Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction,

word choice, etc.)12 points

Criteria Description

Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice,

etc.)

5. Target 12 points

The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word

choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline,

and scope.

4. Acceptable 11.04 points

The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for

the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly.

3. Approaching 10.56 points

Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.

2. Insufficient 9.6 points

Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are

present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech

appropriately.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer

appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates writer either

does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language

use)6 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. Target 6 points

Writer is clearly in control of standard, written, academic English.

4. Acceptable 5.52 points

Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present.

3. Approaching 5.28 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to

the reader.

2. Insufficient 4.8 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.

Documentation of Sources 6 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as

appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Target 6 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment

and style, and format is free of error.

4. Acceptable 5.52 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is

mostly correct.

3. Approaching 5.28 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some

formatting errors may be present.

2. Insufficient 4.8 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to

assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Sources are not documented.

Total 120 points

error: Content is protected !!