HSYP806 Systems Science in Healthcare
Assessment Task 2: Case study report
Due: 12 noon Thursday 3rd October 2019 (week 8)
Weighting: 50%
Length: 2,500 words
Referencing style: Vancouver
Details
Analyse the case study provided – “Breast cancer screening error: fatal mistake or lucky escape?” published in the BMJ (2018; 361: k2063), and write a report using the attached ‘Writing a case study response’ as a guide.
You will find additional resources on your iLearn site.
You need to report on your analysis of the case while using a range of theoretical concepts related to systems thinking which you believe are relevant to the case, including: resilience; sociotechnical systems; case study methodology; safe systems; consumer participation, and systems evaluation methods.
In your analysis you should demonstrate your understanding of:
• of how systems underpin healthcare and current systems thinking,
• the role of digital health and health informatics in systems thinking, • systems approaches to address population health issues, and
• challenges to adopting a systems approach to public health.
Your case study report must include the following headings and you must use the ‘Writing a case study response’ guidelines.
• Introduction
• Description
• Discussion
• Conclusion/Recommendations
• Reference list
Guide for assessment/marking of assignment 2
The guide which the marker will use to assess your assignment (marking rubric) is included at the end of this assignment. Please note the weighting which will be applied to each section, in the marking rubric. For example, you can see that the ‘Discussion’ section is given the most weighting (50%).
Referencing
Please refer to the MPH Noticeboard on iLearn particularly in relation to academic integrity and assignment guide. It is essential that any resources, journal articles, reports, books, web pages etc. referred to are appropriately referenced using the Vancouver citation style. Citation software is used to check all assignments for plagiarism.
Word length
The word length guide for this assignment is 2,500 words. Those who exceed (or are below) this by more than 200 words will be penalised.
Writing a case study response
What is a case study?
A case study is a description of a real-life problem or situation which requires you to analyse the main issues involved. These issues need to be discussed and related to the academic literature and/or research findings on the topic and conclusions then drawn about why the situation occurred and how best to respond to it.
Why do we write case study responses?
A case study is a way to apply the theoretical knowledge gained from the academic literature to real life situations that you may encounter in your work. Writing a case study response enables you to
• analyse the issues in a real-life situation,
• apply the knowledge gained from your academic reading and research and
• draw conclusions about how to respond as a professional to that situation.
How to write a case study response
Before you start writing, you need to carefully read the case study and make a note of the main issues and problems involved as well as the main stakeholders (persons or groups of persons who have an interest in the case).
A case study response would include the following elements:
Introduction
Introduce the main purpose of the case study and briefly outline the overall problem to be solved.
Description
Write a brief description of the case under discussion giving an outline of the main issues involved. Always assume that your reader knows nothing of the assignment task and provide enough information to give a context for your discussion of the issues.
Discussion
Discuss the issues raised one by one, using information gained from your research of the academic literature. Your discussion may include:
• an outline of the issue and its implications for or relationship to different stakeholders
• how that issue links to theories or research in the academic literature
• suggested solutions or ideas
• evaluation of the solutions or ideas for this particular case
Conclusion / Recommendations
Finally, sum up the conclusions that you have come to and give recommendations to resolve the case. Give reasons for your recommendations.
Checklist for a case study response
Have I:
• Carefully read the case and noted the main issues and stakeholders in the case?
• Written a brief description of the case to give your readers a context for the main issues?
• Discussed each issue with reference to the academic literature?
• Evaluated the solutions or ideas for each issue to find the ones most suitable?
• Made final recommendations of how to resolve the case?
• Used a well-structured introduction, body and conclusion?
• Cited and referenced all of the work by other people?
• Used correct grammar, spelling and punctuation, clear presentation and appropriate reference style?
Reference: Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Cite/Write ‘Writing a case study response’ [Internet]
[Cited September 2017] Available from: http://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/write/casestudy.jsp
Assessment Task 2 marking rubric
Criterion 1
Introduction 5%
Criterion 2
Description 5%
Criterion 3
Discussion
50% Outstanding
HD
= 85% Main purpose of the case study was very clearly outlined The problem to be solved was very clearly and logically presented A brief description of the case with an outline of the main issues involved was very clearly and concisely presented The descriptions were presented in a very logical and coherent manner
Responses to the points below demonstrate an in-depth understanding
with critical analysis of the case study
• Outline of the issue and its implications for different stakeholders
• Outline how each issue links to theories or research in the
academic literature
• Suggested solutions or ideas
• Evaluation of the solutions or ideas for this particular case Advanced
D
= 75% Main purpose of the case study was clearly outlined The problem to be solved was clearly and logically presented
A brief description of the case with an outline of the main issues involved was clearly and concisely presented The descriptions were presented in a logical and coherent manner
Responses to the points below demonstrate a well-rounded understanding
with critical analysis of the case study
• Outline of the issue and its implications for different stakeholders
• Outline how each issue links to theories or research in the
academic literature
• Suggested solutions or ideas
• Evaluation of the solutions or ideas for
this particular case Proficient
C
= 65% The main purpose of the case study was mostly clearly outlined The problem to be solved was mostly clearly and logically presented
A brief description of the case with an outline of the main issues involved was mostly presented clearly and concisely The descriptions were mostly presented in a logical and coherent manner Responses to the points below demonstrate a general understanding with some critical analysis of the case study
• Outline of the issue and its implications for different stakeholders
• Outline how each issue links to theories or research in the
academic literature
• Suggested solutions or ideas
• Evaluation of the solutions or ideas for
this particular case Functional
P
= 50% The main purpose of the case study was not always presented clearly The problem to be solved was not always clearly presented or logical A brief description of the case with an outline of the main issues involved was not always clearly and concisely presented The descriptions were not always presented in a
logical or coherent manner Responses to the points below demonstrate some understanding and critical analysis of the case study
• Outline of the issue and its implications for
different stakeholders
• Outline how each issue links to theories or research in the
academic literature
• Suggested solutions or ideas
• Evaluation of the solutions or ideas for this particular case
Limited
F
50%
The main purpose of the case study was not clearly outlined The problem to be solved was not clearly nor logically presented
The description of the case and the main issues involved were not presented clearly. The descriptions were not presented in a logical or coherent manner
Responses to the points below demonstrate a lack of understanding and lack of critical analysis of the case study
• Outline of the issue and its implications for different stakeholders
• Outline how each issue links to theories or research in the
academic literature
• Suggested solutions or ideas
• Evaluation of the solutions or ideas for
this particular case
Outstanding Advanced Proficient Functional Limited
HD D C P F
= 85% = 75% = 65% = 50% 50%
The conclusion The conclusion is The conclusion is The conclusion The conclusion is
extends, purposeful and in parts summarizes absent,
connects and comments on perceptiveThe purposeful and perceptive previously stated information incomplete, or unfocused
Criterion 4 relevant topics recommendation Most The You failed to Conclusion and The s are recommendation recommendation adequately list
recommendatio recommendation comprehensively s are listed and s are not always recommendation n s are very listed with most some reasons listed and you did s and did not give
35% comprehensively reasons for your are given for your not always give reasons for your
listed with recommendation recommendation reasons for your recommendation reasons for your s provided s recommendation s
recommendation s s provided
Referencing and Referencing and Some references Many references Most references citation style is citation style is were inconsistent were inconsistent were inconsistent correct consistent between the text between the text between the text
(Vancouver style) (Vancouver style) and the reference and the reference and the reference and consistent between the text list; the reference list; there are list; there are
between the and the reference list has some many mistakes in many mistakes in
Criterion 5 reference list and list; the reference mistakes the reference list the reference list
Referencing the text; the list has only a You have failed
5% reference list is few minor to acknowledge complete and mistakes some reference without errors sources