Risks Management Program Analysis

Benchmark - Risk Management Program Analysis - Part Two
Benchmark
lopes-writeRequires LopesWrite
Start Date
Feb 7, 2022, 12:00 AM
Due Date
Feb 13, 2022, 11:59 PM
Points
150
Rubric
View Rubric
Status
Upcoming
Assessment Description
The purpose of this assignment is to analyze how an organization's quality and improvement processes contribute to its risk management program.
This assignment builds on the Risk Management Program Analysis – Part One assignment you completed in Topic 1 of this course. Please reference Order#00141186
Assume that the sample risk management program you analyzed in Topic 1 was implemented and is now currently in use by your health care employer/organization. Further assume that your supervisor has asked you to create a high‐level summary brief of this new risk management program to share with a group of administrative personnel from a newly created community health organization in your state who has enlisted your organization's assistance in developing their own risk management policies and procedures.
Compose a 1,250‐1,500 word summary brief that expands upon the elements you first addressed in the Topic 1 assignment. In this summary brief, address the following points regarding your health care organization and its risk management program:
Explain the role of your organization's MIPPA-approved accreditation body (e.g., JC, ACR, IAC) in the evaluation of your institution's quality improvement and risk management processes.
Describe the roles that different levels of administrative personnel play in healthcare ethics and establishing or sustaining employer/employee-focused organizational risk management strategies and operational policies.
Illustrate how your organization's risk management and compliance programs support ethical standards, patient consent, and patient rights and responsibilities.
Explain the legal and ethical responsibilities health care professionals face in upholding risk management policies and administering safe health care at your organization.
Relate how your organization's quality improvement processes support and contribute to its overall journey to excellence.
In addition to your textbook, you are required to support your analysis with a minimum of three peer‐reviewed references.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
Benchmark Information
This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:
BS Health Sciences
3.3 Explain the ethical and legal responsibilities of health care professionals related to risk management assessment and policies.
Benchmark - Risk Management Program Analysis - Part Two - Rubric
Role of the MIPPA
22.5 points
Criteria Description
Role of the MIPPA-Approved Accreditation Body in Evaluation of the Quality Improvement and Risk Management Processes of an Organization
5. 5: Excellent
22.5 points
An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is comprehensive. The submission further incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
4. 4: Good
19.13 points
An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is present and incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
16.88 points
An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
14.63 points
An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is not included.
Administrative Roles
22.5 points
Criteria Description
Administrative Roles Relevant to Employer-Employee-Focused Risk Management Strategies and Operational Policies
5. 5: Excellent
22.5 points
A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
4. 4: Good
19.13 points
A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
16.88 points
A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
14.63 points
A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is not included.
Support of Patient Rights and Responsibilities
22.5 points
Criteria Description
Support of Patient Rights and Responsibilities by Risk Management Programs and Quality Improvement Processes
5. 5: Excellent
22.5 points
An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
4. 4: Good
19.13 points
An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
16.88 points
An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
14.63 points
An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is not included.
Legal and Ethical Responsibilities of Health Care Professionals (B)
22.5 points
Criteria Description
Legal and Ethical Responsibilities of Health Care Professionals to Uphold Risk Management Policies and Administer Safe Health Care (C3.3)
5. 5: Excellent
22.5 points
An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
4. 4: Good
19.13 points
An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
16.88 points
An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
14.63 points
An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is not included.
How Quality Improvement Processes in a Health Care Organization Support Its Journey to Excellence
22.5 points
Criteria Description
How Quality Improvement Processes in a Health Care Organization Support Its Journey to Excellence
5. 5: Excellent
22.5 points
Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its Journey to Excellence is comprehensive. The submission further incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
4. 4: Good
19.13 points
Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its Journey to Excellence is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support.
3. 3: Satisfactory
16.88 points
Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its Journey to Excellence is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
14.63 points
Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its Journey to Excellence is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its journey to excellence is not included.
Thesis Development and Purpose
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
5. 5: Excellent
7.5 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
4. 4: Good
6.38 points
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
3. 3: Satisfactory
5.63 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.88 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Argument Logic and Construction
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Argument Logic and Construction
5. 5: Excellent
7.5 points
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
4. 4: Good
6.38 points
Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
3. 3: Satisfactory
5.63 points
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.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.88 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. 5: Excellent
7.5 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. 4: Good
6.38 points
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.
3. 3: Satisfactory
5.63 points
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.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.88 points
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.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
5. 5: Excellent
7.5 points
All format elements are correct.
4. 4: Good
6.38 points
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
3. 3: Satisfactory
5.63 points
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.88 points
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
Documentation of Sources
7.5 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style
5. 5: Excellent
7.5 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. 4: Good
6.38 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
3. 3: Satisfactory
5.63 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
4.88 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.