Recent Question/Assignment

NSG3EPN: Engagement in Professional Nursing
Detailed Assessment Guide 2019
Assessment Task Due Date % Comments
One 1000 word written assessment to appraise & critique a public inquiry into a health system failure and actions of staff.
Case study is of the Bundaberg hospital deaths & surgical injuries of patients under surgeon Dr Jayant Patel. Monday 2nd
September
2019
1700hours
25%
Please refer to assessment task rubric for assignment marking details. Submit assignment via turnitin.
Please note you do not need to attach a cover page or rubric for upload, but provide margins on each page for comments.
One 2000 word written reflective piece addressing contemporary practice issues relating to 3 subject modules.
• Leadership
• Communication/health informatics
• Transition
Monday
October 7th
2019,
1700 hours
40%
Please refer to assessment task rubric for assignment marking details. Submit via turnitin.
Please note you do not need to attach a cover page or rubric for upload, but provide margins on each page for comments
An online multiple choice question examination based upon the theoretical content covered in the online component of the subject (e-books).
There will be 10 questions relating to each of the six subject modules:
1. Clinical and Corporate governance
2. Quality and Risk
3. Leadership and
Management
4. Organisational Culture
5. Communication & EHealth
6. Transition to Practice
Access
15th to 30th
October
35%
The examination will be available online via the subject LMS assessment for 15 days.
This is an open examination. You are permitted to have course materials during the examination.
Exam questions will be randomly selected from a question bank.
All students are encouraged to complete the exam where and when they know they have reliable internet access
You will only be allowed one attempt at the exam
As a form of assessment there is no back button or opportunity to change your selection – please choose your answer carefully.
Assessment 1: Written piece examining a public inquiry into a health system failure
Due date: Monday 2nd September 1700hours for all groups except:
Cohort E only- due Friday 27th September
1000 words (25%)
Both nationally and internationally, there have been public inquiries into the failure of health systems to deliver safe and evidence based care.
The 2005 investigation into clinical incidents, surgical errors and patient deaths at Bundaberg hospital QLD, highlighted multiple inadequacies of clinical governance, leadership and behaviour of staff. The surgeon Dr Jayant Patel was appointed surgical director for the hospital during a period of time where the hospitals goals related to increasing the number of patients treated. This is a well published example of an Australian health system failure.
This assessment requires you to explore this prominent inquiry and to answer the question posed in two only of the four modules below;
• Clinical Governance
• Quality & Safety
• Leadership and Management
• Organisational Culture
A brief introductory paragraph is required to identify which two modules you will address in your response. This introduction is not included in the word count. As a written assessment, please use a third person writing style.
Your response for each module will be 500 words (1000 words in total).
A brief list of resources have been provided in the assessment section of the LMS to assist you in beginning to explore the context of this health service inquiry. You must support your assertions with evidence from additional sources of contemporary literature.
Please submit this assessment through the Turnitin portal, you do not need to upload the rubric. Please refer to the rubric to guide your completion of the activity.
1. Clinical Governance
Clinical governance is defined in the Victorian Clinical Governance framework (2017) as:
-..the integrated systems, processes, leadership and culture that are at the core of providing safe, effective, accountable and person-centered healthcare underpinned by continuous improvement.
There are five domains in this refreshed clinical governance framework. Within the five domains, key systems and practices are required to support safe, effective, person-centred care for every consumer, every time.
From the model above, identify two domains. Describe how these two domains may have influenced the system failure in the Bundaberg hospital public inquiry.
Use the literature to support your assertions.
2. Quality and Safety
Identify and describe a risk management strategy that the organisation in your inquiry could have undertaken to prevent the health system failure.
Such strategies may include:
• Credentialing
• Reporting and acting upon near misses and incidents
• Accreditation and benchmarking
• Auditing
• Monitoring and responding to complaints
How might the implementation of this risk management strategy have changed the outcome in the inquiry?
3. Leadership and management
Identify and describe two traits/characteristics of an open and transparent leader.
Were the characteristics evident in the key figures in the inquiry? Use the evidence from the inquiry to support this assertion.
Briefly examine how these characteristics influence the delivery of safe patient care.
Use evidence from contemporary literature to support your assertions.
4. Organisational culture
Define the term Whistle-blower.
Describe what influence the organisational culture had on the quality of care in the inquiry?
Did the culture of the organisation help to hide or disclose the failure? Justify your response with evidence from the literature.
See marking rubric below for details on grading requirements.
NSG3EPN – Engagement in Professional Nursing
Assessment one – Written piece examining a public inquiry into the Bundaberg hospital system failures (1000 words - 25% of overall mark)
Rubric assignment marking guide Due: Monday 2nd September.
Criteria Excellent (80-100%) Very good (70-80%) Good
(60-70%) Fair
(50-60%) Poor ( 50%) Mark
1. Response to
Module One Clear identification of the first module selected relating to the public inquiry.
Comprehensive and succinct exploration and addressing of assessment question. Assessment criteria fully addressed.
Excellent analysis and integration of evidence from the literature. Uses extensive relevant literature to support assertions.
(32+ marks) Clear identification of the first module selected relating to the public inquiry.
Comprehensive exploration of assessment question. Assessment criteria fully addressed.
Very good analysis and integration of evidence from the literature.
Uses a range of relevant literature to support assertions.
(28-31 marks) Identification of the first module selected relating to the public inquiry.
Good exploration of assessment question. Assessment criteria mostly addressed.
Good analysis and integration of evidence from the literature. Uses mostly relevant literature to support assertions.
(24-27 marks) Identification of the first module selected relating to the public inquiry.
Fair exploration of assessment question criteria with some key areas not addressed.
Superficial analysis and integration of evidence from the literature.
Uses some relevant literature to support assertions.
(20-23 marks) Poor identification of the first module selected relating to the public inquiry.
Confused or absent exploration of assessment question. Assessment criteria not addressed.
Minimal to no analysis or integration of evidence from the literature.
Superficial or no use of relevant literature to support assertions.
( 20 marks)
/40
2. Response to
Module Two Clear identification of the second module selected relating to the public inquiry.
Comprehensive and succinct exploration of assessment question criteria.
Excellent analysis and integration of evidence from the literature. Uses extensive relevant literature to support assertions.
(32+ marks) Clear identification of the second module selected relating to chosen public inquiry.
Comprehensive exploration of assessment question criteria.
Very good analysis and integration of evidence from the literature.
Uses a range of relevant literature to support assertions.
(28-31 marks) Identification of the second module selected relating to the public inquiry.
Good exploration of assessment question. Assessment criteria mostly addressed.
Good analysis and integration of evidence from the literature. Uses mostly relevant literature to support assertions.
(24-27 marks) Identification of the second module selected relating to the public inquiry.
Fair exploration of assessment question criteria with some key areas not addressed.
Superficial analysis and integration of evidence from the literature.
Uses some relevant literature to support assertions.
(20-23 marks) Poor identification of the second module selected relating to the public inquiry.
Confused or absent exploration of assessment question. Assessment criteria not addressed.
Minimal to no analysis or integration of evidence from the literature.
Superficial to no use of relevant literature to support assertions.
( 20 marks)
/40
3. Use of literature Very well supported with credible, current and peer reviewed sources.
Demonstrated clear and consistent evidence of critical appraisal of reference material
(8+ marks) Well supported with current and peer reviewed sources.
Demonstrated mostly consistent evidence of critical appraisal of reference material.
(7 marks) Supported with references but with some inappropriate material and/or poor quality sources.
Inconsistently demonstrated evidence of critical appraisal of reference material
(6 marks) Poorly supported with references and with much inappropriate material and/or poor quality sources. Limited evidence of critical appraisal of reference material
(5 marks) Poorly supported with references and with much inappropriate material and/or from poor quality sources. No evidence of critical appraisal of reference materials.
( 5 marks) /10
4. Written expression and
referencing Writing was fluent with very minimal spelling, typing or grammatical errors.
Key ideas from the literature were effectively paraphrased and cited.
Utilised correct APA 6th style for citations and reference list
(8+ marks) Writing was fluent with very minimal spelling, typing or grammatical errors.
Key ideas from the literature were effectively paraphrased and cited.
Utilised correct APA 6th style for citations most ( 70%) of the time.
(7 marks) Writing was not always fluent with some spelling, typing or grammatical errors.
Key ideas from the literature were not always effectively paraphrased or cited.
Utilised correct APA 6th style for citations and reference list most ( 60%) of the time.
(6 marks) Writing may not be fluent with some spelling, typing or grammatical errors.
Key ideas from the literature were not always effectively paraphrased or cited.
Utilised correct APA 6th style for citations and reference list 50% of the time.
(5 marks) Writing was not fluent with many spelling, typing or grammatical errors.
Key ideas from the literature not effectively paraphrased or cited. Incorrect style for citations and reference list more than 50% of the time.
( 5 marks) /10
Marks will be deducted from total mark when: • Sources do not meet minimum number and/ or type specified and/or is not relevant / credible (Up to one mark deducted.)
• Presentation does not meet requirements, language not consistently professional (Up to one mark deducted.) • Each element meets prescribed word limit (Up to one mark deducted.)
Actual marks deducted (maximum 3 marks) Minus
Comments:
Total mark
/100
=
/25
Assessor’s signature _____________________________________ Print name _____________________________________ Date: _____________________
Assignment 2 and 3 details to follow at the end of first week of semester