Description
**PLEASE MAKE SURE TO FOLLOW THE RUBRIC, USE APA FORMAT AND USE RESOURCES THAT ARE NO OLDER THAN 2018**
Healthcare organizations continually seek to optimize healthcare performance. For years, this approach was a three-pronged one known as the Triple Aim, with efforts focused on improved population health, enhanced patient experience, and lower healthcare costs.
More recently, this approach has evolved to a Quadruple Aim by including a focus on improving the work life of healthcare providers. Each of these measures are impacted by decisions made at the organizational level, and organizations have increasingly turned to EBP to inform and justify these decisions.
To Prepare:
Read the articles by Sikka, Morath, & Leape (2015); Crabtree, Brennan, Davis, & Coyle (2016); and Kim et al. (2016) provided in the Resources.
Reflect on how EBP might impact (or not impact) the Quadruple Aim in healthcare.
Consider the impact that EBP may have on factors impacting these quadruple aim elements, such as preventable medical errors or healthcare delivery.
To Complete:
Write a brief analysis (no longer than 2 pages) of the connection between EBP and the Quadruple Aim.
Your analysis should address how EBP might (or might not) help reach the Quadruple Aim, including each of the four measures of:
Patient experience
Population health
Costs
Work life of healthcare providers
NURS_6052_Module01_Week01_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_6052_Module01_Week01_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWrite a brief analysis of the connection between evidence-based practice and the Quadruple Aim. Your analysis should address how evidence-based practice might (or might not) help reach the Quadruple Aim, including each of the four measures of:· Patient experience· Population health· Costs· Work life of healthcare providers
85 to >76.0 ptsExcellentThe analysis clearly and accurately addresses in detail how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. … The analysis accurately and thoroughly explains in detail how the four measures of patient experience, population health, costs, and work-life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. … The analysis provides a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim. The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the analysis provided with credible and detailed examples. 76 to >67.0 ptsGoodThe analysis accurately addresses how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. … The analysis accurately explains how the four measures of patient experience, population health, and work life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. … The analysis provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim. The response integrates at least 1 outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the analysis provided and may include some detailed examples. 67 to >59.0 ptsFairThe analysis inaccurately or vaguely addresses how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. … The analysis inaccurately or vaguely explains how the four measures of patient experience, population health, and work life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. … The analysis provides an inaccurate or vague analysis of the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim with a vague or inaccurate analysis of outside resources. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the analysis provided and may include vague or inaccurate examples. 59 to >0 ptsPoorThe analysis inaccurately and vaguely addresses how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim or is missing. … The analysis inaccurately and vaguely explains how the four measures of patient experience, population health, and work life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim or is missing. … The analysis provides a vague and inaccurate analysis of the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim with a vague and inaccurate analysis of outside resources. The response fails to integrate any resources to support the analysis provided or is missing.
85 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. … A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. 4 to >3.5 ptsGoodParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. … Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive. 3.5 to >3.0 ptsFairParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time. … Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 3 to >0 ptsPoorParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. … No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentUses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 to >3.5 ptsGoodContains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.5 to >3.0 ptsFairContains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 to >0 ptsPoorContains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentUses correct APA format with no errors. 4 to >3.5 ptsGoodContains a few (one or two) APA format errors. 3.5 to >3.0 ptsFairContains several (three or four) APA format errors. 3 to >0 ptsPoorContains many (five or more) APA format errors.
5 pts
Total Points: 100
