competencies b p p 2 — b p p ta s k 1

4/22/2021 WGU Performance Assessment

https://tasks.wgu.edu/student/000296318/course/15880062/task/1242/overview#taskOverviewRubric 1/12

BPP2 — BPP TASK 1

APPLICATION OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AND FUTURE DELIVERY MODELS — C163

PRFA — BPP2

COMPETENCIES

7016.1.1 : Strategic Planning ProcessThe graduate evaluates the components of strategic planning and integrates strategic planning within variedhealthcare settings.

7016.1.2 : Strategic Leadership Methods and ConceptsThe graduate evaluates the use of systems theory, organizational development theory, change management,and leadership concepts in the strategic planning process within evolving healthcare settings.

7016.1.3 : Evolving Trends in Healthcare and NursingThe graduate evaluates healthcare trends and adapts strategic planning process to meet the changinghealthcare environment.

7016.1.4 : Effect of Technology on HealthcareThe graduate evaluates the use of technology within the healthcare setting as it relates to the organization’sstrategic plan.

INTRODUCTION

This assessment will require you to analyze a healthcare system’s survey data (Hospital ConsumerAssessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, or HCAHPS) and develop a strategic plan for improvementof organizational scores. The HCAHPS results posted on Hospital Compare, which is part of thegovernment’s Medicare website, allow consumers to make fair and objective comparisons between hospitalsand state and national averages on important measures related to the patient’s unique perspective of thecare received. You will need to incorporate the most recent survey scores data analysis (includingcomparison scores/benchmarking), impact of scores (financial and quality), organizational structure/design,use of technology, and influential cultural and social/environmental factors into this project. You may select amethod of presentation that involves either a media presentation or a business plan document that willprovide a thorough analysis, a plan that includes stakeholder involvement, and a timeline for implementation,evaluation, and outcome measurement.

SCENARIO

You are the newly appointed chief nursing officer of a hospital and have been tasked with improving the mostrecently reported HCAHPS score for the entire organization. The hospital board is requesting a detailedreport, analysis, and plan to improve these results. You are instructed to complete the full data and impactanalysis; develop a detailed strategic plan to improve the scores in all areas of the hospital, incorporatingquality improvement, shared accountability, technology, care delivery model, and financial stability; propose

TASK OVERVIEW SUBMISSIONS EVALUATION REPORT



a rapid implementation timeline; and outline the process of evaluation in an effective presentation that youwill present at the next board meeting.

REQUIREMENTS

Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and nomore than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased fromsources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be usedas a guide.

Professional Communications is a required aspect to pass this task. Completion of a spell check and grammarcheck prior to submitting your final work is strongly recommended.

You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria thatwill be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubricaspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.

Create a multimedia presentation or business plan document in which you do the following:Note: If a multimedia presentation is selected, presenter notes must be included for each slide in order tofully cover the level of explanation, analysis, and discussion necessary.

A. Provide the HCAHPS scores for a hospital of your choice. Note: Refer to the web link to find HCAHPS scores for various hospitals.

B. Analyze the HCAHPS scores of your chosen hospital by doing the following:1. Compare the scores to state and national averages.2. Compare the scores to two other hospitals in the region.3. Compare the survey response rates to two other hospitals in the region.4. Describe the hospital's demographic patient population and services provided.5. Discuss how the following environmental and community factors could potentially influence HCAHPSscores:

a. cultural dynamicsb. educational dynamicsc. socioeconomic dynamics

6. Explain potential short- and long-term financial impact on the organization.a. Discuss potential impact on quality outcomes.

C. Discuss the potential cause of the chosen hospital’s HCAHPS scores.

D. Develop an organizational strategic plan to improve the chosen hospital’s HCAHPS scores throughout the

organization by doing the following:1. Explain how organizational change can help improve the chosen hospital’s HCAHPS scores.2. Discuss the structure (i.e., framework), process (i.e., actions), and outcomes of the strategic plan.3. Discuss how you would incorporate evidence-based practice and shared governance to improveorganizational quality.4. Explain methods you would use to incorporate concepts of shared accountability among patients,medical providers, payers (e.g., insurance providers, Medicare, Medicaid), and personnel.5. Explain methods you would use to incorporate technology trends within healthcare.



6. Explain methods you would use to improve the care delivery system, including the topics of quality,cost, access, and patient-centered care.7. Explain methods you would use to improve financial stability.

E. Develop an implementation plan and timeline for the strategic plan you developed in part D by doing thefollowing:1. Discuss key roles and responsibilities of stakeholders.2. Discuss how you would ensure stakeholder accountability and involvement.3. Discuss any training staff would need in order to implement the plan.4. Outline a timeline for implementation of your plan, including periodic review checkpoints to measureprogress.

F. Discuss the process you would use to evaluate the success of the strategic plan, including the following:• method of measurement that would be used• evaluation of the timeline• method of analysis

1. Discuss how you would involve key stakeholders in the evaluation process.2. Explain how the evaluation results will be communicated internally and externally.

G. When you use sources, include all in-text citations and references in APA format.

Note: When using sources to support ideas and elements in an assessment, the submission MUST includeAPA formatted in-text citations with a corresponding reference list for any direct quotes or paraphrasing. Itis not necessary to list sources that were consulted if they have not been quoted or paraphrased in the text ofthe assessment.

File Restrictions

File name may contain only letters, numbers, spaces, and these symbols: ! - _ . * ' ( ) File size limit: 200 MB File types allowed: doc, docx, rtf, xls, xlsx, ppt, pptx, odt, pdf, txt, qt, mov, mpg, avi, mp3, wav, mp4, wma, flv, asf, mpeg,wmv, m4v, svg, tif, tiff, jpeg, jpg, gif, png, zip, rar, tar, 7z

RUBRIC

ARTICULATION OF RESPONSE (CLARITY, ORGANIZATION, MECHANICS):

A:HCAHPS SCORES

UNSATISFACT-ORY/NOTPRESENT

The candidate

provides unsat-

isfactory articu-

lation of

response.

DOES NOTMEETSTANDARD

The candidate

provides weak

articulation of

response.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides limited

articulation of

response.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides ad-

equate articula-

tion of response.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides sub-

stantial articula-

tion of response.

COMPETENT

https://lrps.wgu.edu/provision/27641407



B1:STATE AND NATIONAL AVERAGES

B2:COMPARISON TO OTHER HOSPITALS

B3:SURVEY RESPONSE RATES


The candidate

does not

provide the

HCAHPS scores

for the chosen

hospital.


Not applicable.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

Not applicable.

Not applicable.HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides the

HCAHPS scores

for the chosen

hospital.


The candidate

does not

provide an ap-

propriate com-

parison of the

scores to state

and national

averages.


The candidate

provides an ap-

propriate com-

parison, with no

detail, of the

scores to state

and national

averages.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides an ap-

propriate com-

parison, with

limited detail, of

the scores to

state and na-

tional averages.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides an ap-

propriate com-

parison, with ad-

equate detail, of

the scores to

state and na-

tional averages.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides an ap-

propriate com-

parison, with

substantial de-

tail, of the scores

to state and na-

tional averages.


The candidate

does not

provide an ap-

propriate com-

parison of the

scores to 2

other hospitals

in the region.


The candidate

provides an ap-

propriate com-

parison, with no

detail, of the

scores to 2

other hospitals

in the region.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides an ap-

propriate com-

parison, with

limited detail, of

the scores to 2

other hospitals

in the region.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides an ap-

propriate com-

parison, with ad-

equate detail, of

the scores to 2

other hospitals

in the region.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides an ap-

propriate com-

parison, with

substantial de-

tail, of the scores

to 2 other hospit-

als in the region.


The candidate

does not


The candidate

provides an ap-

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides an ap-

propriate com-

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides an ap-

propriate com-

parison, with ad-

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides an ap-

propriate com-



B4:DEMOGRAPHICS AND SERVICES PROVIDED

B5A:CULTURAL DYNAMICS

B5B:EDUCATIONAL DYNAMICS

provide an ap-

propriate com-

parison of the

survey response

rates to 2 other

hospitals in the

region.

propriate com-

parison, with no

detail, of the

survey response

rates to 2 other

hospitals in the

region.

parison, with

limited detail, of

the survey re-

sponse rates to

2 other hospit-

als in the region.

equate detail, of

the survey re-

sponse rates to

2 other hospit-

als in the region.

parison, with

substantial de-

tail, of the survey

response rates to

2 other hospitals

in the region.


The candidate

does not

provide a reas-

onable descrip-

tion of the

hospital’s demo-

graphic patient

population and

services

provided.


The candidate

provides a reas-

onable descrip-

tion, with no de-

tail, of the

hospital’s demo-

graphic patient

population and

services

provided.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a reas-

onable descrip-

tion, with lim-

ited detail, of

the hospital’s

demographic

patient popula-

tion and ser-

vices provided.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a reas-

onable descrip-

tion, with ad-

equate detail, of

the hospital’s

demographic

patient popula-

tion and ser-

vices provided.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a reas-

onable descrip-

tion, with sub-

stantial detail, of

the hospital’s

demographic pa-

tient population

and services

provided.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical

discussion of

how cultural dy-

namics could po-

tentially influ-

ence HCAHPS

scores.


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with no detail, of

how cultural dy-

namics could po-

tentially influ-

ence HCAHPS

scores.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with limited de-

tail, of how cul-

tural dynamics

could poten-

tially influence

HCAHPS scores.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with adequate

detail, of how

cultural dynam-

ics could poten-

tially influence

HCAHPS scores.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

discussion, with

substantial de-

tail, of how cul-

tural dynamics

could potentially

influence

HCAHPS scores.


The candidate

does not


The candidate

provides a lo-

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical



B5C:SOCIOECONOMIC DYNAMICS

B6:FINANCIAL IMPACT

B6A:IMPACT ON QUALITY

provide a logical

discussion of

how educational

dynamics could

potentially influ-

ence HCAHPS

scores.

gical discussion,

with no detail, of

how educational

dynamics could

potentially influ-

ence HCAHPS

scores.

gical discussion,

with limited de-

tail, of how edu-

cational dynam-

ics could poten-

tially influence

HCAHPS scores.

with adequate

detail, of how

educational dy-

namics could po-

tentially influ-

ence HCAHPS

scores.

discussion, with

substantial de-

tail, of how edu-

cational dynam-

ics could poten-

tially influence

HCAHPS scores.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical

discussion of

how socioeco-

nomic dynamics

could poten-

tially influence

HCAHPS scores.


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with no detail, of

how socioeco-

nomic dynamics

could poten-

tially influence

HCAHPS scores.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with limited de-

tail, of how so-

cioeconomic dy-

namics could po-

tentially influ-

ence HCAHPS

scores.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with adequate

detail, of how

socioeconomic

dynamics could

potentially influ-

ence HCAHPS

scores.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

discussion, with

substantial de-

tail, of how so-

cioeconomic dy-

namics could po-

tentially influ-

ence HCAHPS

scores.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical

explanation of

the potential

short- and long-

term financial

impact on the

organization.


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with no de-

tail, of the po-

tential short-

and long-term

financial impact

on the

organization.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with lim-

ited detail, of

the potential

short- and long-

term financial

impact on the

organization.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with ad-

equate detail, of

the potential

short- and long-

term financial

impact on the

organization.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

explanation, with

substantial de-

tail, of the poten-

tial short- and

long-term finan-

cial impact on the

organization.



MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical



C:CAUSE OF SCORES

D1:ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

D2:STRUCTURE, PROCESS, AND OUTCOMES

The candidate

does not

provide a logical

discussion of the

potential impact

on quality

outcomes.

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with no detail, of

the potential im-

pact on quality

outcomes.

gical discussion,

with limited de-

tail, of the po-

tential impact

on quality

outcomes.

with adequate

detail, of the po-

tential impact

on quality

outcomes.

discussion, with

substantial de-

tail, of the poten-

tial impact on

quality

outcomes.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical

discussion of the

potential cause

of the chosen

hospital’s

HCAHPS scores.


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with no support,

of the potential

cause of the

chosen

hospital’s

HCAHPS scores.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with limited sup-

port, of the po-

tential cause of

the chosen

hospital’s

HCAHPS scores.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with adequate

support, of the

potential cause

of the chosen

hospital’s

HCAHPS scores.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

discussion, with

substantial sup-

port, of the po-

tential cause of

the chosen

hospital’s

HCAHPS scores.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical

explanation of

how organiza-

tional change

can help im-

prove the

chosen

hospital’s

HCAHPS scores.


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with no

support, of how

organizational

change can help

improve the

chosen

hospital’s

HCAHPS scores.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with lim-

ited support, of

how organiza-

tional change

can help im-

prove the

chosen

hospital’s

HCAHPS scores.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with ad-

equate support,

of how organiza-

tional change

can help im-

prove the

chosen

hospital’s

HCAHPS scores.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

explanation, with

substantial sup-

port, of how or-

ganizational

change can help

improve the

chosen hospital’s

HCAHPS scores.



MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

HIGHLYCOMPETENT



D3:IMPROVING ORGANIZATIONAL QUALITY

D4:SHARED ACCOUNTABILITY

The candidate

does not

provide a logical

discussion of the

structure, pro-

cess, and out-

comes of the

strategic plan.

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with no detail, of

the structure,

process, and

outcomes of the

strategic plan.

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with limited de-

tail, of the struc-

ture, process,

and outcomes of

the strategic

plan.

gical discussion,

with adequate

detail, of the

structure, pro-

cess, and out-

comes of the

strategic plan.

The candidate

provides a logical

discussion, with

substantial de-

tail, of the struc-

ture, process,

and outcomes of

the strategic

plan.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical

discussion of

how to incorpor-

ate evidence-

based practice

and shared gov-

ernance to im-

prove organiza-

tional quality.


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with no support,

of how to incor-

porate evid-

ence-based

practice and

shared gov-

ernance to im-

prove organiza-

tional quality.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with limited sup-

port, of how to

incorporate

evidence-based

practice and

shared gov-

ernance to im-

prove organiza-

tional quality.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with adequate

support, of how

to incorporate

evidence-based

practice and

shared gov-

ernance to im-

prove organiza-

tional quality.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

discussion, with

substantial sup-

port, of how to

incorporate evid-

ence-based prac-

tice and shared

governance to

improve organiz-

ational quality.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical

explanation of

methods that

would be used

to incorporate

concepts of

shared account-

ability among

patients, med-

ical providers,


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with no de-

tail, of methods

that would be

used to incor-

porate concepts

of shared ac-

countability

among patients,

medical pro-

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with lim-

ited detail, of

methods that

would be used

to incorporate

concepts of

shared account-

ability among

patients, med-

ical providers,

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with ad-

equate detail, of

methods that

would be used

to incorporate

concepts of

shared account-

ability among

patients, med-

ical providers,

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

explanation, with

substantial de-

tail, of methods

that would be

used to incorpor-

ate concepts of

shared account-

ability among pa-

tients, medical

providers, pay-



D5:TECHNOLOGY TRENDS

D6:IMPROVE CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM

D7:IMPROVE FINANCIAL STABILITY

payers, and

personnel.

viders, payers,

and personnel.

payers, and

personnel.

payers, and

personnel.

ers, and

personnel.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical

explanation of

methods that

would be used

to incorporate

technology

trends within

healthcare.


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with no de-

tail, of methods

that would be

used to incor-

porate techno-

logy trends

within

healthcare.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with lim-

ited detail, of

methods that

would be used

to incorporate

technology

trends within

healthcare.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with ad-

equate detail, of

methods that

would be used

to incorporate

technology

trends within

healthcare.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

explanation, with

substantial de-

tail, of methods

that would be

used to incorpor-

ate technology

trends within

healthcare.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical

explanation of

methods that

would be used

to improve the

care delivery

system, includ-

ing the topics of

quality, cost, ac-

cess, and pa-

tient-centered

care.


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with no

support, of

methods that

would be used

to improve the

care delivery

system, includ-

ing the topics of

quality, cost, ac-

cess, and pa-

tient-centered

care.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with lim-

ited support, of

methods that

would be used

to improve the

care delivery

system, includ-

ing the topics of

quality, cost, ac-

cess, and pa-

tient-centered

care.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with ad-

equate support,

of methods that

would be used

to improve the

care delivery

system, includ-

ing the topics of

quality, cost, ac-

cess, and pa-

tient-centered

care.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

explanation, with

substantial sup-

port, of methods

that would be

used to improve

the care delivery

system, including

the topics of

quality, cost, ac-

cess, and patient-

centered care.



MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

COMPETENT HIGHLYCOMPETENT



E1:STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

E2:STAKEHOLDER ACCOUNTABILITY

E3:TRAINING

The candidate

does not

provide a logical

explanation of

methods that

would be used

to improve fin-

ancial stability.

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with no

support, of

methods that

would be used

to improve fin-

ancial stability.

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with lim-

ited support, of

methods that

would be used

to improve fin-

ancial stability.

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with ad-

equate support,

of methods that

would be used

to improve fin-

ancial stability.

The candidate

provides a logical

explanation, with

substantial sup-

port, of methods

that would be

used to improve

financial stability.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical

discussion of

key roles and re-

sponsibilities of

stakeholders.


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with no detail, of

key roles and re-

sponsibilities of

stakeholders.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with limited de-

tail, of key roles

and responsibil-

ities of

stakeholders.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with adequate

detail, of key

roles and re-

sponsibilities of

stakeholders.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

discussion, with

substantial de-

tail, of key roles

and responsibilit-

ies of

stakeholders.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical

discussion of

how to ensure

stakeholder ac-

countability and

involvement.


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with no detail, of

how to ensure

stakeholder ac-

countability and

involvement.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with limited de-

tail, of how to

ensure stake-

holder account-

ability and

involvement.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with adequate

detail, of how to

ensure stake-

holder account-

ability and

involvement.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

discussion, with

substantial de-

tail, of how to en-

sure stakeholder

accountability

and involvement.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with limited de-

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with adequate

detail, of train-

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

discussion, with

substantial de-



E4:PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

F:EVALUATE THE STRATEGIC PLAN’S SUCCESS

F1:INVOLVEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS

discussion of

training staff

would need in

order to imple-

ment the plan.

with no detail, of

training staff

would need in

order to imple-

ment the plan.

tail, of training

staff would need

in order to im-

plement the

plan.

ing staff would

need in order to

implement the

plan.

tail, of training

staff would need

in order to imple-

ment the plan.


The candidate

does not outline

an appropriate

timeline for im-

plementation of

the plan, includ-

ing periodic re-

view check-

points to meas-

ure progress.


Not applicable.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

outlines an ap-

propriate

timeline, with

insufficient de-

tail, for imple-

mentation of the

plan, including

periodic review

checkpoints to

measure

progress.

COMPETENT

Not applicable.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

outlines an ap-

propriate

timeline, with

sufficient detail,

for implementa-

tion of the plan,

including peri-

odic review

checkpoints to

measure

progress.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical

discussion of

how to evaluate

the success of

the strategic

plan, including

the given points.


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with no detail, of

how to evaluate

the success of

the strategic

plan, including

the given points.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with limited de-

tail, of how to

evaluate the

success of the

strategic plan,

including the

given points.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with adequate

detail, of how to

evaluate the

success of the

strategic plan,

including the

given points.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

discussion, with

substantial de-

tail, of how to

evaluate the suc-

cess of the stra-

tegic plan, includ-

ing the given

points.


The candidate

does not


The candidate

provides a lo-

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical discussion,

with adequate

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

discussion, with



F2:COMMUNICATION OF RESULTS

G:SOURCES

WEB LINKS

Hospital Compare

provide a logical

discussion of

how to involve

key stakehold-

ers in the evalu-

ation process.

gical discussion,

with no detail, of

how to involve

key stakehold-

ers in the evalu-

ation process.

with limited de-

tail, of how to

involve key

stakeholders in

the evaluation

process.

detail, of how to

involve key

stakeholders in

the evaluation

process.

substantial de-

tail, of how to in-

volve key stake-

holders in the

evaluation

process.


The candidate

does not

provide a logical

explanation of

how to commu-

nicate the evalu-

ation results in-

ternally and

externally.


The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with no de-

tail, of how to

communicate

the evaluation

results intern-

ally and

externally.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with lim-

ited detail, of

how to commu-

nicate the evalu-

ation results in-

ternally and

externally.

COMPETENT

The candidate

provides a lo-

gical explana-

tion, with ad-

equate detail, of

how to commu-

nicate the evalu-

ation results in-

ternally and

externally.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

The candidate

provides a logical

explanation, with

substantial de-

tail, of how to

communicate the

evaluation res-

ults internally

and externally.


When the can-

didate uses

sources, the

candidate does

not provide in-

text citations

and references.


When the can-

didate uses

sources, the

candidate

provides only

some in-text

citations and

references.

MINIMALLYCOMPETENT

When the can-

didate uses

sources, the

candidate

provides appro-

priate in-text

citations and

references with

major deviations

from APA style.

COMPETENT

When the can-

didate uses

sources, the

candidate

provides appro-

priate in-text

citations and

references with

minor devi-

ations from APA

style.

HIGHLYCOMPETENT

When the can-

didate uses

sources, the can-

didate provides

appropriate in-

text citations and

references with

no readily de-

tectable devi-

ations from APA

style, OR the

candidate does

not use sources.

https://lrps.wgu.edu/provision/71484321

http://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare

competencies b p p 2 — b p p ta s k 1

Documents