hange / Quality Management Project (1)
Change / Quality Management Project (1)
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIssue Identification
3.0 pts
Introduces the quality standard being addressed and explains its source. At least 3 references (primary peer-reviewed reports, professional information &/or legislation or law, as applicable) are used to substantiate the standard.
2.5 pts
Introduces the quality standard being addressed and explains its source. 2 references (primary peer-reviewed reports, professional information &/or legislation or law, as applicable) are used to substantiate the standard.
2.0 pts
Introduction of quality standard being addressed or explanation of its source unclear or fewer than 2 references to substantiate the standard.
3.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuality Variance
3.0 pts
Analyzes evidence of the quality variance in contrast to the expected performance standard.
2.5 pts
Describes evidence of the quality variance and states the expected standard.
2.0 pts
Description of the evidence of the quality variance is unclear or the expected standard is vague.
3.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRCA
3.0 pts
A complex grasp of the problem is evidence by a thorough root cause analysis. There is a logical flow to a definitive statement of the problem source.
2.5 pts
The root cause analysis is clear and concise. There is a logical flow to a definitive statement of the problem source.
2.0 pts
The root cause analysis does not lead logically to a definitive statement of the problem source.
3.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeScope
3.0 pts
States the solution to the problem and the improvement goal. Includes 3 or more high quality references (primary peer-reviewed reports, professional information &/or legislation or law as applicable) to substantiate or justify the solution.
2.5 pts
States the solution to the problem and the improvement goal. Includes 2 high quality references (primary peer-reviewed reports, professional information &/or legislation or law as applicable) to substantiate or justify the solution.
2.0 pts
Solution to the problem &/or the improvement goal are not clearly stated. Includes 1 reference or references of lesser quality (secondary, non-peer reviewed) to substantiate or justify the solution.
3.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSolution
3.0 pts
States the solution to the problem and the improvement goal. Includes 3 or more high quality references (primary peer-reviewed reports, professional information &/or legislation or law as applicable) to substantiate or justify the solution.
2.5 pts
States the solution to the problem and the improvement goal. Includes 2 high quality references (primary peer-reviewed reports, professional information &/or legislation or law as applicable) to substantiate or justify the solution.
2.0 pts
Solution to the problem &/or the improvement goal are not clearly stated. Includes 1 reference or references of lesser quality (secondary, non-peer reviewed) to substantiate or justify the solution.
3.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSolution implementation
3.0 pts
Clearly and logically describes the steps to be taken to effect the change and solve the problem. Reflects on the participation of the stakeholders and analyzes the effect the solution will have on their workflow/practice. Includes a detailed timeline for the solution.
2.5 pts
Describes the steps to be taken to effect the change and solve the problem. States the participation of the stakeholders and the effect the solution will have on their workflow/practice but analysis is weak. Includes a general timeline for the solution.
2.0 pts
Steps to be taken to effect the change and solve the problem are unclear or inadequately differentiated. Participation of the stakeholders and the effect the solution will have on their workflow/practice is unclear. A timeline for the solution is missing or incomplete.
3.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis
3.0 pts
Describes the data collection and analysis that will occur to determine if the solution meets the goals.
1.5 pts
States the data collection that will occur to determine if the solution meets the goals. Planned analysis of data is vague.
1.0 pts
Data collection plan is unclear &/or analysis to determine if the solution meets the goals is vague or missing.
3.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeNext Steps
3.0 pts
Describe measures which will be taken based on the analysis of effectiveness of the change. Explains how the solution will be continued (hold the gains), or what will happen if the goals are not met.
1.5 pts
Describe measures which will be taken based on the analysis of effectiveness of the change. Explains how the solution will be continued (hold the gains), or what will happen if the goals are not met.
1.0 pts
Describe measures which will be taken based on the analysis of effectiveness of the change. Explains how the solution will be continued (hold the gains), or what will happen if the goals are not met.
3.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentation Organization
3.0 pts
Information is presented in a logical and interesting PDSA sequence that is easy for the audience to follow.
1.5 pts
Information is presented in a logical PDSA sequence that is followed by the audience but is a bit dull.
1.0 pts
The presentation is disorganized so the PDSA cycle is difficult for the audience to follow.
3.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeVisual Appeal
3.0 pts
Use of contrasting colors, font style and word/line spacing enhances comprehension of the message. Few, if any complete sentences.
1.5 pts
Colors &/or font size, word spacing, limited use of complete sentences could be improved. Does not substantially detract from comprehension of the message.
1.0 pts
Colors &/or font size, word spacing, frequent use of complete sentences detracts from the message.
3.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGraphics and Images
3.0 pts
Graphs &/or tables are well labeled, of ample size and free of extraneous information. Presenter walks the audience through graphs, tables and images so the meaning to the topic is clear.
1.5 pts
Graphs &/or tables labeled & mostly readable; some extraneous information. Presenter partially leads the audience through graphs, tables and images so the meaning to the topic is incomplete.
1.0 pts
Graphs &/or tables are insufficiently labeled, too small to easily read &/or cluttered with extraneous information. Presenter briefly notes graphs, tables and images but the meaning to the topic is too vague to be of use.
3.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeElocution
3.0 pts
Speaks clearly, correctly and precisely, loud enough to be easily heard, and slowly enough for easy understanding. Voice inflection contributes to the meaning of the spoken word and the audience engagement. When presenter is visible, eye contact without the use of notes.
1.5 pts
Speech is clear & loud enough to be heard. Rate acceptable. Voice inflection insufficient to enhance the meaning of the spoken word and keep audience’s attention. When presenter is visible, eye contact made except to briefly consult notes.
1.0 pts
Speaks unclearly, mispronounces words &/or speaks too softly or rapidly to be easily understood. Delivery is in a monotone as if reading. The audience attention fading. When presenter is visible, eye contact is limited; mostly reading from notes.
3.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA
3.0 pts
Perfect APA formatting throughout presentation and reference list. Provided URLs are correct. 1-2 grammatical or type errors.
1.5 pts
2 – 3 minor APA formatting errors in the presentation and reference list. Some provided URLs are incorrect. 2-3 grammatical or type errors.
1.0 pts
Noticeable lack of attention to APA. Provided URLs are incorrect. Many grammatical errors.
3.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResearch Evidence
3.0 pts
At least 5 primary peer-reviewed references which are directly and strongly related to the topic. No 2nd sources. Evidence is correctly used in support of points.
1.5 pts
At least 4 peer-reviewed references which are directly and strongly related to the topic. No more than one secondary source referenced. Most evidence is correctly used in support of points.
1.0 pts
At least 4 peer-reviewed references; 2 or more secondary sources are used. References reflect the topic but association is less direct or references are not of the caliber required for a scholarly presentation.
3.0 pts
Total Points: 42.0
The post hange / Quality Management Project (1) Change / Quality Management Project (1) appeared first on PapersSpot.
