(240)-343-2585 info@essaymerit.com

NUR 630 Wk 7 Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data NUR 630 Wk 7 Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data NUR 630 Wk 7 Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data 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: What conclusions can be drawn for each quality measure over the 5-year period? What trends do you see for each quality measure over the 5-year period? When comparing each quality measure, is the quality measure better than, worse than, or no different from the national benchmark over time? Based on your examination of the data, which of the quality measures should you prioritize and why? Develop a quality improvement metric and related measures to improve care processes, outcomes, and the patient experience relating to the identified area of opportunity. 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: NUR 630 Wk 7 Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data 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. Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NUR 630 Wk 7 Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data Attachments NUR-630-RS-HospitalAssociatedInfectionsD Resources Collapse All ResourcesCollapse All Performance Improvement: Stages, Steps and Tools Explore the Performance Improvement: Stages, Steps and Tools page of the IntraHealth International website. https://www.intrahealth.org/sst/index.html Washington Manual of Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Read Chapter 6 in Washington Manual of Patient Safety and Quality Improvement. View Resource Measuring Patient Safety: The Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System (Past, Present, and Future) Read “Measuring Patient Safety: The Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System (Past, Present, and Future)” by Classen, Munie … Read More https://oce-ovid-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/article/01209203-202104000-00030/HTML Serious Reportable Events Explore the Serious Reportable Events page located on the National Quality Forum website. http://www.qualityforum.org/Topics/SREs/Serious_Reportable_Events.aspx Medicare Initiatives Improve Hospital Care, Patient Safety Read “Medicare Initiatives Improve Hospital Care, Patient Safety,” by Conway, from The Hospitalist (2015). https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/122300/health-policy/medicare-initiatives-improve-hospital-care-patient-safety Talking Quality: Reporting to Consumers on Health Care Quality Explore the Talking Quality: Reporting to Consumers on Health Care Quality page of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) … Read More https://www.ahrq.gov/talkingquality/index.html Continuous Quality Improvement in Health Care Review Chapter 4 in Continuous Quality Improvement in Health Care. View Resource Optimize Data Visualization to Improve Communication About Quality Improvement Read “Optimize Data Visualization to Improve Communication About Quality Improvement,” by AHC Media, from Case Managemen … Read More https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=139844155&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=ehost The Effectiveness of Continuous Quality Improvement for Developing Professional Practice and Improving Health Care Outcomes: A Systematic Review Read “The Effectiveness of Continuous Quality Improvement for Developing Professional Practice and Improving Health Care Outcomes: A … Read More https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=142792426&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=ehost A Primer on Data Visualization in Infection Prevention and Antimicrobial Stewardship Read “A Primer on Data Visualization in Infection Prevention and Antimicrobial Stewardship,” by Salinas, Kritzman, Kobayashi, Edm … Read More Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data – Rubric Collapse All Benchmark – Hospital-Associated Infections Data – RubricCollapse All 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 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 Order Now