Clinical practice improvement paper (Shared decision making) Order Description Assignment 2 This assignment builds on the work already undertaken for previous Assignment 1 (Investigation of a clinical governance and clinical practice improvement issue; Shared decision making). I have uploaded that assignment 1 paper. please read it prior to starting on this. You will be extra provided with: • resources relating to commonly used CPI(Clinical Practice improvement) tools • a CPI template that you must type your CPI paper into. You will be required to construct a CPI report using the supplied CPI template. In order to pass this assignment, you must successfully address each of the criteria outlined on the marking rubric ASSIGNMENT 2 Clinical Practice Improvement Project Report Project Title: Project Aim: Relevance of Clinical Governance to your project Evidence that the issue / problem is worth solving: Key Stakeholders: CPI Tool: Summary of proposed interventions: Barriers to implementation and sustaining change: Evaluation of the project: NURS2006 Assignment 3 – CPI paper Marking Rubric PERFORMANCE STANDARD CATEGORY & WEIGHTING Excellent Work Good Work Passing Work Unsatisfactory work Project Aim and Evidence the issue is worth solving 20% Aim succinct & clearly defined. All evidence relevant & rigorous. Shows a very high level of insight & relevance to the issue. (17-20) ? Aim well defined. Some irrelevant information but most evidence relevant & rigorous. Shows a very good level of insight & relevance to the issue. (13-16.5) ? Aim stated with some ambiguity. Some evidence relevant and rigorous, Acceptable level of insight. Quite a lot of irrelevant information is present. May be overlong/ too brief (10-12.5) ? Aim not clearly stated Most evidence is not relevant or rigorous. Poor level of insight & relevance to the issue. Significant amount of irrelevant/ missing information. (0–9.5) ? Relevance of Clinical Governance to your project 10% Succinct and highly relevant discussion of the relevant pillar of clinical governance related to the chosen clinical issue. (9-10) ? Succinct and mostly relevant discussion of the relevant pillar of clinical governance related to the chosen clinical issue. (7-8.5) ? Adequate discussion of the relevant pillar of clinical governance related to the chosen clinical issue. Some parts not relevant Overlong / too brief, may be missing relevant information. (5-6.5) ? Inadequate discussion of the relevant pillar of clinical governance related to the chosen clinical issue. Overlong / too brief, may be missing a significant amount of relevant information (0-4.5) ? Key Stakeholders 5% Identifies most relevant key stakeholders. Discusses clearly how they could be involved in the project. Succinctly and expertly written. Very high level of insight into the role of stakeholders. (4.5 – 5) ? Identifies some relevant key stakeholders and adequately discusses how they could be involved in the project. Very well written. Good level of insight into the role of stakeholders. (3.5-4.25) ? Identifies a few relevant key stakeholders. Mentions briefly how they could be involved. Quite well written but contains some irrelevant information, or minor information is missing. Adequate level of insight into the stakeholder role. (2.5 – 3.25- ) ? Contains irrelevant information, or major information is missing. Inappropriate or no key stakeholders are identified Poor insight into the stakeholder role. (0-2) ? Clinical Practice Improvement Tool 20% Describes a relevant CPI tool Very clearly discusses how it could be used to address the aim and implement the interventions. Succinctly and expertly written with no omissions of relevant information. (17-20) ? Describes a relevant CPI tool Discusses quite clearly how the tool could be used to address the aim and implement the interventions. Well written but may contain some irrelevant information, or some minor information is missing (13-16.5) ? Describes a relevant CPI tool and adequately discusses how the tool could be used to address the aim and implement the interventions. Not succinct, contains irrelevant information, significant information is missing (10-12.5) ? A relevant CPI tool is not identified. There is no adequate discussion of how the tool could be used to meet the aim or implement the interventions. Contains irrelevant information or some major information is missing. (0–9.5) ? Summary of proposed interventions 20% All relevant interventions are discussed very well. Project outline is very clear and the relevance to clinical practice is very high. (17-20) ? Most relevant interventions discussed quite well. Project outline is clear & relevance to clinical practice is good. Contains some irrelevant information, minor information may be missing. (13-16.5) ? Acceptable level of relevant interventions discussed. Project outline mostly clear, although it may be unclear how the project would actually be implemented in clinical practice due to irrelevant/missing info (10-12.5) ? Some elements missing or incomplete. May contain large amounts of irrelevant information. Project poorly described and it is unclear what the project actually entails or its relevance to clinical practice. (0–9.5) ? Barriers to Implementation 15% Identifies most potential barriers to implementation & clinical change. Discusses in depth how these barriers could be overcome or minimised. (13-15) ? Identifies some potential barriers to implementation & clinical change. Discusses how these barriers could be overcome or minimised. (10-12.5) ? Identifies a few potential barriers to implementation & clinical change. Discusses how barriers could be overcome or minimised. Minor omissions and/or some irrelevant information present (7.5-9.5) ? Relevant barriers not identified. Poor or no discussion about how they could be overcome or minimised. Major omissions, much of the information provided is irrelevant / unrelated to the CPI goal. (0-7) ? Evaluation of the project 10% Succinct discussion of an excellent and achievable plan for how the intervention/s could be evaluated. (9-10) ? Succinct discussion of a very good and mostly achievable plan for how the intervention/s could be evaluated. (7-8.5) ? Discussion of an adequate plan for how the intervention/s could be evaluated. Some parts not relevant or achievable Overlong / too brief, may be missing relevant information. (5-6.5) ? Plan absent or not well described. Most or all of the plan is not relevant or achievable Overlong / too brief, may be missing a significant amount of relevant information (0-4.5) ? Name of Marker Grade Overall Comments

Posted on by Dan

Clinical practice improvement paper (Shared decision making)

Order Description

Assignment 2
This assignment builds on the work already undertaken for previous Assignment 1 (Investigation of a clinical governance and clinical practice improvement issue; Shared decision making). I have uploaded that assignment 1 paper. please read it prior to starting on this.
You will be extra provided with:
• resources relating to commonly used CPI(Clinical Practice improvement) tools
• a CPI template that you must type your CPI paper into.

You will be required to construct a CPI report using the supplied CPI template. In order to pass this assignment, you must successfully address each of the criteria outlined on the marking rubric

ASSIGNMENT 2
Clinical Practice Improvement Project Report
Project Title:

Project Aim:

Relevance of Clinical Governance to your project

Evidence that the issue / problem is worth solving:

Key Stakeholders:

CPI Tool:

Summary of proposed interventions:

Barriers to implementation and sustaining change:

Evaluation of the project:

NURS2006 Assignment 3 – CPI paper Marking Rubric
PERFORMANCE STANDARD
CATEGORY & WEIGHTING

Excellent Work
Good Work
Passing Work
Unsatisfactory work

Project Aim and Evidence the issue is worth solving
20%

Aim succinct & clearly
defined. All evidence relevant & rigorous. Shows a very high level of insight & relevance to the issue.

(17-20) ?
Aim well defined.
Some irrelevant information but most evidence relevant & rigorous. Shows a very good level of insight & relevance to the issue.

(13-16.5) ?    Aim stated with some ambiguity. Some evidence relevant and rigorous,
Acceptable level of insight.
Quite a lot of irrelevant information is present. May be overlong/ too brief

(10-12.5) ?    Aim not clearly stated
Most evidence is not relevant or rigorous.
Poor level of insight & relevance to the issue. Significant amount of irrelevant/ missing information.
(0–9.5) ?

Relevance of Clinical Governance to your project

10%    Succinct and highly relevant discussion of the relevant pillar of clinical governance related to the chosen clinical issue.

(9-10) ?    Succinct and mostly relevant discussion of the relevant pillar of clinical governance related to the chosen clinical issue.

(7-8.5) ?    Adequate discussion of the relevant pillar of clinical governance related to the chosen clinical issue.
Some parts not relevant Overlong / too brief, may be missing relevant information.
(5-6.5) ?    Inadequate discussion of the relevant pillar of clinical governance related to the chosen clinical issue. Overlong / too brief, may be missing a significant amount of relevant information
(0-4.5) ?

Key Stakeholders
5%    Identifies most relevant key stakeholders. Discusses clearly how they could be involved in the project.
Succinctly and expertly written. Very high level of insight into the role of stakeholders.

(4.5 – 5) ?
Identifies some relevant key stakeholders and adequately discusses how they could be involved in the project.
Very well written. Good level of insight into the role of stakeholders.

(3.5-4.25) ?    Identifies a few relevant key stakeholders. Mentions briefly how they could be involved. Quite well written but contains some irrelevant information, or minor information is missing. Adequate level of insight into the stakeholder role.
(2.5 – 3.25- ) ?    Contains irrelevant information, or major information is missing.
Inappropriate or no key stakeholders are identified Poor insight into the stakeholder role.

(0-2) ?

Clinical Practice Improvement Tool
20%    Describes a relevant CPI tool Very clearly discusses how it could be used to address the aim and implement the interventions. Succinctly and expertly written with no omissions of relevant information.

(17-20) ?
Describes a relevant CPI tool Discusses quite clearly how the tool could be used to address the aim and implement the interventions. Well written but may contain some irrelevant information, or some minor information is missing
(13-16.5) ?    Describes a relevant CPI tool and adequately discusses how the tool could be used to address the aim and implement the interventions.
Not succinct, contains irrelevant information,  significant information is missing
(10-12.5) ?    A relevant CPI tool is not identified. There is no adequate discussion of how the tool could be used to meet the aim or implement the interventions.
Contains irrelevant information or some major information is missing.
(0–9.5) ?

Summary of proposed interventions
20%    All relevant interventions are discussed very well.
Project outline is very clear and the relevance to clinical practice is very high.

(17-20) ?    Most relevant interventions discussed quite well.
Project outline is clear & relevance to clinical practice is good. Contains some irrelevant information, minor information may be missing.

(13-16.5) ?    Acceptable level of relevant interventions discussed.
Project outline mostly clear, although it may be unclear how the project would actually be implemented in clinical practice due to irrelevant/missing info

(10-12.5) ?    Some elements missing or incomplete. May contain large amounts of irrelevant information.
Project poorly described and it is unclear what the project actually entails or its relevance to clinical practice.

(0–9.5) ?

Barriers to Implementation
15%    Identifies most potential barriers to implementation & clinical change. Discusses in depth how these barriers could be overcome or minimised.

(13-15) ?    Identifies some potential barriers to implementation & clinical change. Discusses how these barriers could be overcome or minimised.

(10-12.5) ?    Identifies a few potential barriers to implementation & clinical change. Discusses how barriers could be overcome or minimised. Minor omissions and/or some irrelevant information present
(7.5-9.5) ?    Relevant barriers not identified. Poor or no discussion about how they could be overcome or minimised. Major omissions, much of the information provided is irrelevant / unrelated to the CPI goal.
(0-7) ?

Evaluation of the project
10%    Succinct discussion of an excellent and achievable plan for how the intervention/s could be evaluated.

(9-10) ?    Succinct discussion of a very good and mostly achievable plan for how the intervention/s could be evaluated.

(7-8.5) ?    Discussion of an adequate plan for how the intervention/s could be evaluated. Some parts not relevant or achievable
Overlong / too brief, may be missing relevant information.

(5-6.5) ?    Plan absent or not well described. Most or all of the plan is not relevant or achievable
Overlong / too brief, may be missing a significant amount of relevant information

(0-4.5) ?

Name of Marker

Grade

Overall Comments

This question has been answered.

Get Answer