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
Benchmark
– Hospital-Associated Infections Data
Start Date & Time
Feb 9, 2023, 12:00 AM
Upcoming
Rubric
View Rubric
Assessment Traits
Benchmark
Assessment Description
The purpose of this assignment is to examine health care data on hospital-associated infections and determine the best methods for presenting the data to stakeholders. Use the scenario below and the “Hospital Associated Infections Data” Excel spreadsheet to complete the assignment.
Scenario
You have been tasked with displaying Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) hospital quality measures data for a 5-year period on four quality measures at your site. After examining the data, identify trends and determine the best way to present the actionable information to stakeholders.
Assignment
Create a 12-15-slide PowerPoint (not including title and reference slides) presenting the data to the stakeholders. Address the following in your PowerPoint:
1. What conclusions can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period?
2. What trends do you see for each quality measure over the 5-year period?
3. When comparing each quality measure, is the quality measure better than, worse than, or no different from the national benchmark over time?
4. Based on your examination of the data, which of the quality measures should you prioritize and why?
5. Develop a quality improvement metric and related measures to improve care processes, outcomes, and the patient experience relating to the identified area of opportunity.
6. Explain how you would monitor the metric and use collected data for improvement.
Include a title slide, references slide, and comprehensive speaker notes.
Refer to the resource, “Creating Effective PowerPoint Presentations,” located in the Student Success Center, for additional guidance on completing this assignment in the appropriate style.
Use a minimum of two peer-reviewed, scholarly sources as evidence.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
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 not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
Benchmark Information
This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competency:
MSN Leadership in Health Care Systems
6.6: Develop and monitor continuous quality improvement metrics and measures to improve care processes, outcomes, and the patient experience.
Attachments
NUR-630-RS-HospitalAssociatedInfectionsData.xlsx
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
