Select Page

The purpose of this assignment is to analyze how an organization’s quality and improvement processes contribute to its risk management program.
This assignment builds on the Risk Management Program Analysis – Part One assignment you completed in Topic 1 of this course.
Assume that the sample risk management program you analyzed in Topic 1 was implemented and is now currently in use by your health care employer/organization. Further assume that your supervisor has asked you to create a high‐level summary brief of this new risk management program to share with a group of administrative personnel from a newly created community health organization in your state who has enlisted your organization’s assistance in developing their own risk management policies and procedures.
Compose a 1,250‐1,500 word summary brief that expands upon the elements you first addressed in the Topic 1 assignment. In this summary brief, address the following points regarding your health care organization and its risk management program:

Explain the role of your organization’s MIPPA-approved accreditation body (e.g., JC, ACR, IAC) in the evaluation of your institution’s quality improvement and risk management processes.
Describe the roles that different levels of administrative personnel play in healthcare ethics and establishing or sustaining employer/employee-focused organizational risk management strategies and operational policies.
Illustrate how your organization’s risk management and compliance programs support ethical standards, patient consent, and patient rights and responsibilities.
Explain the legal and ethical responsibilities health care professionals face in upholding risk management policies and administering safe health care at your organization.
Relate how your organization’s quality improvement processes support and contribute to its overall journey to excellence.

In addition to your textbook, you are required to support your analysis with a minimum of three peer‐reviewed references.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.
Benchmark Information
This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:
BS Health Sciences
3.3 Explain the ethical and legal responsibilities of health care professionals related to risk management assessment and policies.

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points

HLT-306V HLT-306V-O501 Benchmark – Risk Management Program Analysis – Part Two 150.0

Criteria Percentage 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) 2: Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) 3: Satisfactory (75.00%) 4: Good (85.00%) 5: Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned

% Scaling 100.0%

Role of the MIPPA-Approved Accreditation Body in Evaluation of the Quality Improvement and Risk Management Processes of an Organization 15.0% An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is not included. An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is present and incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. An explanation of the role that the MIPPA-approved accreditation body plays in the evaluation of the quality improvement and risk management processes of an organization is comprehensive. The submission further incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

Administrative Roles Relevant to Employer-Employee-Focused Risk Management Strategies and Operational Policies 15.0% A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is not included. A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. A description of the roles administrative personnel play relevant to employer-employee-focused risk management strategies and operational policies is comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

Support of Patient Rights and Responsibilities by Risk Management Programs and Quality Improvement Processes 15.0% An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is not included. An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. An illustration of how the rights and responsibilities of a patient are supported by risk management programs and quality improvement processes is comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

Legal and Ethical Responsibilities of Health Care Professionals to Uphold Risk Management Policies and Administer Safe Health Care (C3.3) 15.0% An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is not included. An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. An explanation of the legal and ethical responsibilities of health care professionals to uphold risk management policies and administer safe health care is comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

How Quality Improvement Processes in a Health Care Organization Support Its Journey to Excellence 15.0% Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its journey to excellence is not included. Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its Journey to Excellence is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its Journey to Excellence is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its Journey to Excellence is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. Evidence of how the quality improvement processes of a health care organization support its Journey to Excellence is comprehensive. The submission further incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

Thesis Development and Purpose 5.0% Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Argument Logic and Construction 5.0% Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0% Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style 5.0% Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

Total Weightage 100%