hsa 540: health management instructor dr. jeff … › sites › default › ...2.3 distinguish...

Hxx 540 SYLLABUS of 21

HSA 540: HEALTH MANAGEMENT

(4 CREDITS)

INSTRUCTOR Dr. Jeff Ritter

OFFICE South Hampton

PHONE 561 376 9667

EMAIL [email protected]

OFFICE HOURS To be announced prior to class starting date via email.

CLASS MEETINGS Distance Learning and One Synchronous Class Meeting

COURSE DESCRIPTION:

This online course explores the use of healthcare management techniques required for effective

planning and decision-making by today's healthcare managers. Concepts and theories from the

general management literature will be analyzed and used to respond to emerging issues in the

health care industry related specifically to the delivery of high quality, effective, patient-centered

care. The course will use field-based examples to illustrate the tools available to improve the

quality of organizational decisions and processes to achieve fiscal sustainability. All aspects of

this course, with the exception of one optional synchronous class meeting, will be presented and

discussed via a distance learning format (using Blackboard).

COURSE GOALS:

Students will develop an understanding of a comprehensive overview of healthcare management

for those students interested in pursuing careers in the field of healthcare administration.

Knowledge and information are only of practical value when acquired in context. Therefore, this

course will focus on the analyses of realistic case studies to facilitate student learning. The student

will complete this course with an understanding of healthcare management in the legal, business,

social and operational contexts of today’s health care marketplace and also will benefit from the

authentic experiences of seasoned healthcare administrator guest lectures.

COURSE OBJECTIVES: Upon completion of this course, students will be able to:

1. Apply the appropriate evidence-based management theories and techniques for

performance improvement across diverse segments of the health care industry.


2. Critique the organizational and governance structure across various types of

healthcare sectors entities (acute care hospitals, nursing facility, ambulatory health

services, home health agencies, etc.).

3. Apply the appropriate managerial theories and tools based on a healthcare entity’s

governance and organizational structure.

4. Apply the six key steps in the evidence-informed approach to decision making to a case

study.

5. Critique the strengths and limitations of various managerial problem analysis,

problem-solving and decision-making techniques and styles.

6. Create a strategic marketing and analysis plan that integrates strategizing and systems

theory.

7. Investigate how performance control systems operate within healthcare

organizations and systems.

8. Demonstrate the ability to apply problem analysis, change management theory, and

techniques, and leadership tools to a case study.

9. Analyze the defining differences and similarities between leadership and management

in establishing organizational workforce plans.

10. Demonstrate the ability to employ decision-making strategies to manage human

resource issues (such as, retention and recruitment planning, skills assessment,

mentoring, team management, and evolving organizational structure).

REQUIRED TEXTS:

Longest, B., & Darr, K. (2014). Managing health services organizations and systems (6th ed.).

Baltimore: Health Professions Press.

Seidel, L.F., Lewis, J.B. (2014). The Middleboro Casebook: Healthcare Strategy and

Operations. Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.

REQUIRED READINGS:

Assorted supplemental readings germane to scheduled weekly topics will be posted to

Blackboard under the Readings tab and include the following:

Axelsson, R. (1998). Towards evidence based health care management. International

Journal of Health Planning and Management, 13(4), 307-317.

George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A., & Mayer D. (2007). Discovering your authentic leadership.

Harvard Business Review, 82(2), 129-138.


Kovner, A. R., Elton, J. L., & Billings, J. (2000). Evidence-based management. Frontiers

of Health Services Management, 16(2), 3-24.

Kovner, A. R. & Rundall, T. G. (2006, Spring). Evidence-based management reconsidered.

Frontiers of Health Services Management, 22(3), 3-22.

Rundall, T. G., Martelli, P. F., Arroyo, L., McCurdy, R., Graetz, I., Neuwirth, E. B., Curtis,

P., Schmittdiel, J., Gibson, M., & Hsu, J. (2007). The informed decisions toolbox: Tools for

knowledge transfer and performance improvement. Journal of Healthcare Management,

52(5), 325-342.

Walsh, K. & Rundall, T. G. (2001). Evidence-based management: From theory to practice

in health care. Milbank Quarterly, 79(3), 429-457.

TEACHING STRATEGIES:

This course is delivered through the use of e-instruction Blackboard platform with a combination

of one synchronous learning session and multiple asynchronous learning sessions. Teaching

strategies may include: faculty-led presentations, videos, case studies, problem based learning

scenarios and presentations, small and large group discussions, individual/team based group

student presentations, and interactive discussion board assignments (posted from both the

professor and guest presenters).

EVALUATION METHODS:

Performance will be evaluated as follows (see attached rubrics):

Case Study Analysis (Written) 10%

Case Study Analysis (Written) 10%

Interactive Discussion Board Participation: Analyses/comments on weekly reading

assignments and relevant comments on classmates’ posts (10 points per week)

50%

Learning session to include mini lecture and active discussion 10%

Capstone Paper 20%

Written Assignments: Work must be double-spaced, font size 12, Times New Roman style,

margins 1” left and right, and APA-style formatting is required. All assignments are to be

submitted on or before the required due date. If a student will not be able to meet a due date for

an assignment, the student must notify the professor VIA EMAIL four days prior to the due date.

If a student fails to receive permission from the professor to submit a late assignment, then two (2)

points will be deducted for each day an assignment is late. All papers must be typed in Microsoft

Word or equivalent software.

Written and Verbal Assignments: In evaluating verbal presentations/assignments and all

written material, emphasis will be placed on the students’ ability to concisely and effectively


communicate integration of appropriate literature; utilization of analytical skills; and synthesis

course concepts/theories to develop new insights, ideas, or actions.

Interactive Discussion Board: Proper online etiquette is required for discussion board. Students

are required to craft well written, thoughtful, comprehensive answers to each of the weekly

discussion board topics. Initial posts and responses to fellow students’ posts should demonstrate

a strong command of the material (i.e., your ability to analyze, synthesize, and integrate course

material into posts and responses to peers’ postings).

Students are required to read all postings and must respond to at least two other students’

discussion board posts. Responses to peers should generate discussion; this can be accomplished

by providing substantive feedback, including but not limited to: a respectful critique, reviewing

the strengths of the post and providing suggestions for improvement, providing thought provoking

comments, providing a different analysis of the course material, or posing questions that are

intended to generate discussion.

The professor may develop impromptu postings (e.g., additional case studies and/or management

scenarios, questions, or comments); every student is expected to respond to all professor-generated

posts.

Note to students: This course has been developed for the serious student of healthcare

management. Information will be presented in sequential progression for the progressive

development of healthcare administration requisite knowledge, skills and competencies. This

requires sustained and timely student preparation and participation. The professor will provide

feedback and monitor progress; students are expected to be prepared to discuss the materials

assigned for each class.

Weekly Interactive Discussion Board (see Session Outline herein):

1.1 Explain why decision making is integral to the management functions. Identify three

managerial decision classifications, and give examples of each.

1.2 Using the problem-solving process model, respond to the following questions; make

sure to provide an example and rationale for each response: How do assumptions affect

problem solving? What are some positive and negative results that can occur in the

tentative alternative solution loop? Why are quantitative and non- quantitative criteria

important when evaluating and choosing an alternative?

1.3 You are a CEO of a hospital and vice president for medial affairs, respond appropriately

to questions following case study #4: Ping-Ponging (Longest & Darr, 2014, pp. 320-321).

2.1 Analyze management’s role in assessing technology needs of a healthcare organization

by responding appropriately to questions following case study #1: The feasibility of BEAM

(Longest & Darr, 2014, pp. 169-170).

2.2 Analyze management’s roles and responsibilities in minimizing the potential

detrimental effects of conflicts of interest by responding appropriately to questions

following case study #1: What’s a Manger to do? (Longest & Darr, 2014, pp. 235-236).


2.3 Distinguish performance improvement approaches in informed decision making and

the role of management in such processes by responding appropriately to questions

following case study #1: The CEO’s day (Longest & Darr, 2014, pp. 283-284).

3.1 Compare and contrast the strengths and limitations of the Deming, Juran, and Crosby

approaches to quality improvement. Which approach or combination of approaches would

be more appropriate to case study#5: Surgical safety. Additionally, answer each question

following the case study (Longest & Darr, 2014, p. 361).

3.2 Design a continuous quality improvement process proposal using the four steps of

strategic quality planning in response to case study#1: The Carbondale clinic. Additionally,

answer each question following the case study (Longest & Darr, 2014, pp. 408-409).

3.3 As the business office manager of a Group HMO, respond appropriately to questions

following case study #2: Respond to change (Longest & Darr, 2014, pp. 456-457).

4.1 Assemble a marketing strategy using Porter’s Five Forces Model for case study# 3:

Image management and branding at the disability service organization in Rivertown.

Additionally, answer each question following the case study (Longest & Darr, 2014, pp.

489-490).

4.2 One of the control methods presented is development of an operating budget and related

variance analysis. Table 11.5 (Longest & Darr, 2014, p. 540) shows a departmental budget

with and without indirect expense allocations.

4.3 Prepare a written variance analysis of the two budgets. As the department manager,

which variances would you investigate first and what steps might you take to control these

variances?

5.1 Distinguish between and among the various types of communication networks and

analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each. Select one and apply it to case study #5:

Getting help when needed (Longest & Darr, 2014, p. 697).

GRADING SCALE: A 93 or greater

A- 90 or more but less than 93

B+ 87 or more but less than 90

B 83 or more but less than 87

B- 80 or more but less than 83

C+ 77 or more but less than 80

C 73 or more but less than 77

C- 70 or more but less than 73

D 60 or more but less than 70

F less than 60

ETIQUETTE:


When participating in any aspect of an online course, there are rules of etiquette that need to be

followed. These rules will be observed; students who fail to follow these rules of etiquette will

lose points from their discussion board grade. Please do not use winks, smiley faces, etc. in any

of your postings. Please read the rules that are found posted on this website:

http://matcmadison.edu/online-etiquette-guide

Basic rules include:

• Respect others and their opinions. In online learning students from various

backgrounds come together to learn. It is important to respect their feelings and

opinions though they may differ from your own.

• Tone down your language. Given the absence of face-to-face clues, written text

can easily be misinterpreted. Avoid the use of strong or offensive language and

the excessive use of exclamation points. If you feel particularly strongly about a

point, it may be best to write it first as a draft and then to review it, before posting

it, in order to remove any strong language.

• Pick the right tone. Since we depend on the written word in online learning, it is

especially important to choose the right words to get your meaning across. For

example, sarcasm is harder to detect when you read the words rather than hearing

them.

• Keep a straight face. In general, avoid humor and sarcasm. These frequently depend

either on facial or tone of voice cues absent in text communication or on familiarity

with the reader.

• Consider others’ privacy. Ask for permission if you want to forward someone’s

email messages to third parties. Keep in mind that all private email is considered

copyrighted by the original author.

• Avoid inappropriate material. Emailing should be used for course

content/information; classmates’ emails should not be used for private soliciting.

• Be forgiving. If someone states something that you find offensive, mention this

directly to the professor. Remember that the person contributing to the discussion

might be new to this form of communication. What you find offensive may quite

possibly have been unintended and can best be cleared up by the professor.

• Think before you press the send button. Think carefully about the content of your

message before contributing it. Once sent to the group there is no taking it back.

Grammar and spelling errors reflect on you and your audience might not be able to

decode misspelled words or poorly constructed sentences.

• Test for clarity. Messages may often appear perfectly clear to you as you compose

them, but turn out to be perfectly obtuse to your reader. One way to test for clarity

is to read your message aloud to see if it flows smoothly. If you can read it to

another person before posting it, even better.

http://madisoncollege.edu/online-etiquette-guide

http://madisoncollege.edu/online-etiquette-guide


• Brevity is best. Be as concise as possible when contributing to a discussion. Your

points might me missed if hidden in a flood of text.

• Stick to the point. Contributions to a discussion should stick to the subject. Don’t

waste others' time by going off on irrelevant tangents.

• Frivolous email. Don’t forward jokes, "chain letters" or unimportant email to other

students without their permission. Not only does it fill up their mailboxes but may

offend people who do not share the same sense of humor or who are tired of these

types of email.

• Read first, write later. Don't add your comments to a discussion before reading the

comments of other students unless the assignment specifically asks you to. Doing

so is tantamount to ignoring your fellow students and is impolite. Comments related

to the content of previous messages should be posted under them to keep related

topics organized and you should specify the person and the particular point on

which you are following up.

• Netspeak. Although electronic communication is still young, many conventions

have already been established. DO NOT TYPE IN ALL CAPS. This is regarded as

shouting and is out of place in a classroom. Acronyms and emoticons (arrangements

of symbols to express emotions) are popular, but excessive use of them can make

your message difficult to read.


SESSION OUTLINE

TOPICS READINGS MODULE ACTIVITIES

WEEK 1

Types and Structures of Health

Services

Organizations and Systems

Managerial Problem Solving

and Decision Making

Longest and Darr:

Chapters 1, 2, 6

Walsh and Rundall

(2001)

Kovner, Elton, and

Billings (2000)

Kovner and Rundall

(2006)

Interactive Discussion

Board: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3

WEEK 2

Healthcare Technology

Ethical and Legal Environment

Practice of Management in

Health Services Organizations

and Systems

Longest and Darr:

Chapters 3, 4, 5

Rundall et al. (2007)

Review of Guest Lecturer or

Professor Mini Lectures


Board: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3

WEEK 3

The Quality Imperative:

The Theory

The Quality Imperative:

Implementation Strategizing

Longest and Darr:

Chapters 7, 8, 9



Written Case Study

Presentations Due


Board: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3

WEEK 4

Marketing

Controlling and Allocating

Resources

Designing

Longest and Darr:

Chapters 10, 11, 12

Axelsson (1998)

Article Review

Learning Session


Board: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

WEEK 5 Leading and Communicating

Longest and Darr:

Chapters 13, 14

George et al. (2007)




Board: 5.1

Capstone


AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

If you have a physical, psychological, medical, or learning disability that may impact your

course work, please contact Disability Support Services,128 ECC Building, (631) 632-6748.

They will determine with you what accommodations are necessary and appropriate. All

information and documentation is confidential.

Students who require assistance during emergency evacuation are encouraged to discuss their

needs with their professors and Disability Support Services. For procedures and information, go

to the following web site: http://www.ehs.sunysb.edu and search Fire Safety and

Evacuation/Physical Disabilities.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Each student must pursue his or her academic goals honestly and be personally accountable for

all submitted work. Representing another person's work as your own is always wrong. Faculty

are required to report suspected instances of academic dishonesty to the Academic Judiciary.

Faculty in the Health Sciences Center (Schools of Health Technology & Management, Nursing,

Social Welfare, Dental Medicine) and School of Medicine are required to follow their school-

specific procedures. For more comprehensive information on academic integrity, including

categories of academic dishonesty, please refer to the academic judiciary website at

http://www.stonybrook.edu/uaa/academicjudiciary/

CRITICAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

Stony Brook University expects students to respect the rights, privileges, and property of other

people. Faculty are required to report to the Office of Judicial Affairs any disruptive behavior

that interrupts their ability to teach, compromises the safety of the learning environment, or

inhibits students' ability to learn. Faculty in the HSC Schools and School of Medicine are

required to follow their school-specific procedures.

LATE PENALTIES

If you are one day late, 3 points will be deducted deducted. Each additional day late, 5 points per day deducted.

Discussion format major post be Wednesday, two quality based peer responses by Sunday.


STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY MHA PROGRAM RUBRICS

EXCELLENT (4) GOOD (3) FAIR (2) POOR (1) TOTAL POINTS

TEAM/INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS (FACE TO FACE AND VIRTUAL) *For individual presentations, ignore item 1)

TEAM ORGANIZATION/

COHESION DURING PRESENTATION (IF

APPLICABLE)

Presenters were extremely organized in

presenting information. Seamless

transitions from presenter to

presenter. Obvious that presenters

rehearsed presentation. Visuals,

such as slide presentation,

professional and well developed.

Presenters were organized in the presentation of

information. Most transitions were smooth.

Material not very organized. Some use of

visuals.

Presenters were minimally organized

in the presentation of information. Many

transitions were abrupt causing

audience confusion. Visuals too detailed,

not organized.

Presenters were very disorganized in the

presentation of information. Most

transitions were abrupt. Obvious that presenters

were not prepared to present and visuals poorly

developed.

BREADTH AND DEPTH OF

PRESENTATION

Presented information enabled clear and

unambiguous understanding of the

topic by the audience.

Presented information leaves few audience

questions to satisfactorily understand the topic.

Presented information leaves a significant number of audience questions to

satisfactorily understand the topic.

Presented information leaves numerous

audience questions to satisfactorily understand

the topic.


CONTENT, FLOW, ANALYSIS,

INTEGRATION OF KNOWLEDGE

Content demonstrates evidence of

outstanding analytic and integrative

approach to apply relevant theory and

related knowledge to the assigned problem. Recommendations and

deliverables (if applicable) contain

clear, workable solutions.

Content shows reasonable application of

theory and relevant knowledge to assigned

problem. Recommendations and

deliverables (if applicable) contain

somewhat clear, workable solutions.

Vague allusion to theory and

knowledge gained, but the linkage to the assigned problem and

proposed solution/answers are

not presented. Recommendations and deliverables (if applicable) do not

contain clear, workable solutions.

Content shows little or no application of relevant

theory/knowledge. Superficial approach with

limited evidence of preparation. No

recommendations or deliverables.

COMMUNICATION AND DELIVERY

Presentation is without spelling or

grammatical errors. Presenters use a clear

voice and correct terms, present clearly

and concisely. Demeanor shows

enthusiasm to gain rapport with audience.

Presenters demonstrate

confidence in their presentation.

Presentation has occasional spelling or grammatical errors.

Presenters' voices are clear. Presenters

generally present clearly and concisely and generally maintain audience rapport.

Presentation has several spelling and grammatical errors. Visuals contain too

much text. Presenters read verbatim from

visuals. Presenters incorrectly pronounce terms. Audience has

difficulty hearing presentation.

Sporadic attention to audience rapport.

Presenters have widespread spelling errors

and/or grammatical errors. Presenters

mumble, incorrectly pronounce terms, speak

too quietly, have poor eye contact most of the time or exhibit no attempt to

establish rapport with the audience.


PROVIDING RELEVANT ANSWERS

TO QUESTIONS

Presenters answer questions well, satisfy audience inquiry and

audience clearly understands responses.

Presenters' answers are succinct and appropriate

to satisfy audience interest. Audience

understands presenters' responses most of the

time.

Presenters' answers minimally satisfy the audience questions. Audience remains unclear on some

responses and ask follow up questions.

Presenters' answers consistently fail to satisfy the audience's questions.

Despite follow up or rephrased questions, the

core question remains unanswered.

PROFESSIONALISM DURING

PRESENTATION

Presenters admirably reflect professional

appearance and presentation skills. Presenters dress professionally,

sit/stand up straight, look relaxed and

confident, make eye contact with audience

and present within allotted timeframe.

Presenters reflect appearance and

presentation skills of professionals.

Presenters' dress professionally, generally

sit/stand up straight, generally make eye

contact with audience, but stays focused on one

or two audience members. Presenter relies on visuals more than recommended.

Presentation is too long or too short.

Presenters minimally reflect appearance and presentation

skills of professionals. Presenters' dress is

not professional. Presenters rarely

sit/stand up straight or make eye contact

with audience. Presentation is too long or too short.

Presenters do not reflect appearance and

presentation skills of professionals. Presenters slouch and do not look at

audience during presentation.

Presentation is too long or too short.

COMMENTS


REFLECTIVE ESSAYS

AWARENESS OF OWN THINKING

Writing explains in detail the sequence of

thought used when facing a task or

problem. Provides detailed analysis of

how an awareness of own thinking

enhanced performance.

Writing demonstrates some awareness of own

thinking. Provides general, sequential

description of how a task or problem was solved.

Provides few ideas about how the new information

could influence own performance.

Writing demonstrates emerging awareness of own thinking but communicates in a

confusing or disorganized

description of thinking used to solve

a problem or task. Does not explain how the new information

will influence personal behavior.

Writing does not demonstrate awareness

of own thinking and communicates in a

confusing or disorganized manner. Does not explain how the new information

will influence personal behavior.

ANALYSIS OF DIFFERING

PERSPECTIVES

Writing explains the reasoning behind

differing points of view and considers and

discusses alternative views rationally and

impartially. Demonstrates flexible and objective thinking.

Writing identifies and articulates issues that are

not points of disagreement as

important issues of controversy.

Demonstrates unexplained bias in

discussion of alternative views.

Writing defends dominant and

privileged beliefs, expectations and

values without sufficiently considering

alternative points of view. Ignores explicit and implicit points of

disagreement.

Writing does not identify or sufficiently consider

alternative points of view. Ignores explicit and

implicit points of disagreement.


CONSTRUCTION OF SUPPORT

Writing determines when it is appropriate to take a position by providing accurate, timely and detailed data as support and provides careful and

reasoned qualifications or restrictions for

position.

Writing takes a strong position on an issue that

warrants defense but does not clearly

articulate a clear line of reasoning behind the argument. Position is

defended with accurate, but incomplete data.

Writing defends information that does not require support. Position articulated but defended with

unreliable or inaccurate data.

Writing does not identify a position requiring

support. Unreliable or inaccurate data cited.

INFORMATION INTERPRETATION

Writing interprets information in

accurate and highly insightful manner. Cites readings and

prior experiences and explains how these

references extend and refine insights.

Writing references other readings or experiences, but explanation about how the information extends insights are

undeveloped or missing. Interpretations of information are

imprecise or awkward.

Writing reflections are descriptive or a reiteration of what happened or what was read. Serious

misinterpretation of the information is

evident. Reflection is shallow and egocentric.

Writing does not address accurate or insightful

information. Reflection is minimal and

undeveloped.

INFORMATION SYNTHESIS

Writing clearly identifies and explains the social, political and

professional implications of the

information and insights.

Writing provides inconsistent or

incomplete explanations of how the information

will effect personal practice and the practice

of other professionals.

Writing provides explanations of how the information will

effect personal practice but the practice of other

professionals is not addressed.

Writing does not provide explanations of how the information will effect

personal practice or the practice of other

professionals.

COMMENTS


DISCUSSION BOARD PARTICIPATION

QUALITY OF POST

Thoughtful, appropriate, reflective

and respectful comments and

responses to other's postings.

Appropriate comments and responds respectfully

to other's postings.

Posts and responds, but with minimal

effort or substance. Late or no posting.

RELEVANCE OF POST

Posts topics on point with current discussion

and prompts further discussion on current

topic.

Posts topics related to current discussion

content.

Posts topics that do not relate to the

current discussion content. Posts short, irrelevant remarks.

Late or no posting.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE LEARNING COMMUNITY

Demonstrates awareness of

community needs. Attempts to motivate

group discussion. Presents creative

approaches to current discussion topic.

Attempts to direct current discussion and

present relevant viewpoints for

consideration by community. Interacts

freely.

Does not demonstrate effort to participate in learning

community as it develops.

Provides no feedback to fellow students or

instructor.

COMMENTS


DISCUSSION PARTICIPATION (FACE TO FACE AND VIRTUAL)

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION

PROMPT

All components of discussion prompt addressed in initial

comment.

Most components of discussion prompt addressed in initial comment. Other

components addressed in subsequent comments.

Some components of discussion prompt addressed in initial comment. Some

components addressed in subsequent comments.

No participation or attempt to respond to

discussion prompt.

APPLICATION OF ASSIGNED READINGS

TO DISCUSSION

Understanding of readings very clear by application in stated

comments.

Understanding of readings somewhat clear

by incorporation in stated comments.

Understanding of reading unclear by

incorporation in stated comments.

No evidence of understanding readings.

RESPONSIVENESS TO GROUP DISCUSSION

Multiple points from multiple participants clearly built upon or

refuted in stated comments.

At least one point from multiple participants clearly built upon or

refuted in stated comments.

Points from one or more participants

vaguely built upon or refuted in stated

comments.

No evidence that any other comments have

been absorbed. Repetition of comments

made by others.

TIMELINESS OF DISCUSSION

CONTRIBUTION

Comments well distributed throughout

discussion.

Comments somewhat distributed throughout

discussion.

Comments sporadically throughout discussion.

Comments not distributed throughout the

discussion.

QUANTITY OF CONTRIBUTIONS

Exceeds minimum number of comments reasonably expected

during discussion.

Meets the minimum number of comments reasonably expected

during discussion.

Falls below the minimum number of

comments reasonably expected during

discussion.

Minimal participation of evidence of engagement

in discussion.

ADHERENCE TO PROFESSIONAL

DISCUSSION PROTOCOLS

All aspects of professional behavior

followed during discussion.

Most aspects of professional behavior


Some aspects of professional behavior


Minimal aspects of professional behavior


COMMENTS


MIDDLEBORO and OTHER CASE STUDY ANALYSES

INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY

The section was well organized, included

relevant information, included adequate content and was

directed toward the correct audience.

The section had one of these limitations: was disorganized, did not

include adequate content or did not present the

main theme.

The section had two of these limitations:

was disorganized, did not include adequate

content or did not present the main

theme.

The section had three of these limitations: was disorganized, did not

include adequate content or did not present the

main theme.

CONTENT

The content of the case study was clear, had a unified focus,

focused on important information,

adequately explained concepts and was

correct.

The content of the case study had one of these

limitations: Hard to understand, included

irrelevant or too much detailed information,

failed to explain concepts, had a

disjointed focus or contained incorrect

information.

The content of the case study had two of

these limitations: Hard to understand,

included irrelevant or too much detailed

information, failed to explain concepts, had a disjointed focus or contained incorrect

information.

The content of the case study had three of these

limitations: Hard to understand, included

irrelevant or too much detailed information,

failed to explain concepts, had a disjointed focus or

contained incorrect information.

PARAGRAPH ORGANIZATION

Paragraphs in the case study had clear topic

sentences, were about a single topic, were

organized at the paragraph level and had transitions from

one paragraph to another.

Paragraphs in the case study had one of the following limitations: Poor topic sentences,

run-on paragraphs or too brief paragraphs, lacked

organization within paragraphs, or lacked transitions from one

paragraph to another.

Paragraphs in the case study had two of

the following limitations: Poor

topic sentences, run-on paragraphs or too

brief paragraphs, lacked organization

within paragraphs, or lacked transitions

from one paragraph to another.

Paragraphs in the case study had three or more

of the following limitations: Poor topic

sentences, run-on paragraphs or too brief

paragraphs, lacked organization within

paragraphs, or lacked transitions from one

paragraph to another.


CASE STUDY ORGANIZATION

The case study organization was easy to follow, presented in

a logical manner, integrated and,

summarized information, when

necessary, and used headers.

The case study organization had one of

the following limitations: Organization was not

logical, information was not consistently

integrated together, information was not summarized when

necessary or headers were missing.

The case study organization had two

of the following limitations:

Organization was not logical, information was not consistently integrated together, information was not summarized when

necessary or headers were missing.

The case study organization had three or

more of the following limitations: Organization

was not logical, information was not

consistently integrated together, information was

not summarized when necessary or headers

were missing.

WRITING STYLE

The style of writing was professional, easy

to understand and used appropriate

vocabulary.

The writing is affected by one of the following limitations: Use of jargon, wordiness,

redundant phrasing, run-on sentences or incorrect

use of vocabulary.

The writing is affected by two of the following limitations:

Use of jargon, wordiness, redundant

phrasing, run-on sentences or

incorrect use of vocabulary.

The writing is affected by three or more of the

following limitations: Use of jargon, wordiness,

redundant phrasing, run-on sentences or incorrect

use of vocabulary.

WRITING SYNTAX The case study report used correct grammar

and punctuation.

The case study report has occasional grammar or

punctuation errors.

The case study report has several grammar

or punctuation errors.

The case study is difficult to understand due to

grammar and punctuation errors.

COMMENTS


COMPREHENSIVE CAPSTONE PROJECT

IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUE(S)

Identifies and demonstrates a clear

and deep understanding of all pertinent issues and

problems.

Identifies and demonstrates a deep

understanding of most pertinent issues and

problems.

Identifies and demonstrates a

limited understanding of issues and

problems.

Identifies and demonstrates a superficial

understanding of issues and problems.

ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

Presents an insightful and thorough analysis of all issues identified,

including necessary references to theory

and class content.

Presents a thorough analysis of most issues

identified, including most necessary references to

theory and class content.

Presents a superficial analysis of some of

the issues identified, omits necessary

references to theory and class content.

Presents an incomplete analysis of the issues

identified.

Uses a strategic approach to identify issues and uses all available tools of

analysis, demonstrates complete command of the strategic concepts

and analytical tools studied.

Uses a strategic approach to identify issues and

uses many tools of analysis, demonstrates good command of the strategic concepts and

analytical tools studied.

Does not use a strategic approach to

identify issues, but does use some tools

of analysis, demonstrates limited

command of the strategic concepts

and analytical tools studied.

Does not use a strategic approach to identify

issues, little or no use of tools of analysis, does not demonstrate command of the strategic concepts and

analytical tools studied.


Supports identified issues and opinions

with logical arguments and evidence, presents a balanced and critical

view drawn from multiple sources of

knowledge, interpretation is both

reasonable and objective.

Supports identified issues and opinions with

reasons and evidence, presents a fairly balanced

view drawn from multiple sources of

knowledge, interpretation is both

reasonable and objective.

Supports identified issues and opinions with limited reasons

and evidence, presents a somewhat one-sided argument.

Supports identified issues and opinions with few

reasons and little evidence, argument is

one-sided and not objective.

RECOMMENDATIONS (ACTION PLAN)

Presents detailed, realistic and appropriate

recommendations clearly supported by

the information presented and

concepts from the text.

Recommendations address all issues and problems identified and analyzed and

follows logically from the analysis.

Presents specific, realistic and appropriate

recommendations adequately supported by concepts from the text.

Recommendations address most issues and problems identified and

analyzed and follows logically from the

analysis.

Presents realistic or appropriate

recommendations supported by


Recommendations address some of the issues and problems

identified and analyzed.

Presents realistic or appropriate

recommendations with little, if any, supported by



OVERALL DOCUMENTATION

EFFECTIVENESS

Well-written and insightful (writing demonstrates a

sophisticated clarity, conciseness and

correctness), including thorough details and

relevant data and information.

Extremely well-organized.

Well-written (writing is accomplished in terms of clarity and conciseness and contains only a few

errors), including sufficient details and

relevant data and information. Well-

organized.

Carelessly written (writing lacks clarity or conciseness and contains numerous

errors). Gives insufficient detail and

relevant data and information lacks

organization.

Poorly written (writing unfocused, rambling, or contains serious errors). Lacks detail and relevant

data and information. Poorly organized.

Comments

hsa 540: health management instructor dr. jeff … › sites › default › ...2.3 distinguish...

Documents