Benchmark Assignment: Comprehensive Assessment:Outcomes and Reflection

Would you like us to handle your paper? Use our company for better grades and meet your deadlines.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Details:

The DNP comprehensive assessment provides learners the opportunity to demonstrate their achievement of core and specialty DNP competencies. It is also an appraisal of learners’ ability to integrate and synthesize knowledge within the context of their scholarly and practice interests and their readiness to complete the DPI project. The two-part comprehensive assessment includes evaluation of work completed throughout the program and a final synthesis and self-reflection demonstrating achievement of programmatic outcomes. In Part One of the assessment, learners were required to collect and review coursework deliverables and practice immersion hours completed in the program thus far. In Part Two, learners are required to synthesize and reflect on their learning and prioritize work for their DPI project.

General Requirements:

Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:

  • Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.
  • 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 Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

Directions:

To complete Part Two of the DNP comprehensive assessment:

Use the information collected in the competency matrix from Comprehensive Assessment Part One to address the following prompts as directed. Each response should be 500-750 words. Your responses should concisely demonstrate synthesis of knowledge gained in the program and the relevant application of knowledge into your practice. You are further required to cite relevant and specific evidence from your coursework to demonstrate your achievement of these programmatic outcomes and corresponding competencies. Review the rubric for this assignment prior to responding to the prompts. Your responses should specifically address the competencies included on the rubric.

Outcome 1:

A DNP must integrate and apply appropriate nursing and science-based theories to evaluate and analyze health and health care phenomena and develop and implement innovative practice approaches.

In what ways have you integrated and applied nursing and science-based theories in your coursework and practice during your DNP course of study? How will you apply what you have learned to your DPI project? Cite specific evidence from your coursework and practice immersion hours in your response.

Outcome 2:

A DNP must provide the leadership to develop and implement health care and organizational policy based on regulatory and other external and internal factors and drive effective change within organizations.

In what ways have you demonstrated leadership in the development and implementation of policy or policy change and contributed to quality improvement during your DNP studies? How will you apply what you have learned to your DPI project? Cite specific evidence from your coursework and practice immersion hours in your response.

Outcome 3:

A DNP must be able use information systems to mine, analyze, and apply data for the purpose of improving information systems as well as patient and organizational outcomes.

In what ways have you successfully applied data analysis to the improvement of information systems, patient care, and organizational outcomes during your course of study? How will you apply what you have learned to your DPI project? Cite specific evidence from your coursework and practice immersion hours in your response.

Outcome 4:

A DNP must be able to articulate and implement strategy and to advocate for the ethical and equitable deployment of care delivery models for improvement of individual, aggregate, and population health management.

In what ways have you articulated, deployed, or advocated for such strategies in your coursework and practice immersion hours? How will you apply what you have learned to your DPI project? Cite specific evidence from your coursework and practice immersion hours in your response.

Outcome 5:

A DNP must be able to evaluate practice outcomes and use research, national benchmarks, and other relevant findings from evidence-based practice to design, direct, utilize, and evaluate quality improvement methodologies that lead to improved patient-centered care.

In what ways have you evaluated practice outcomes and participated in quality improvement initiatives in your coursework and practice immersion hours? How will you apply what you have learned to your DPI project? Cite specific evidence from your coursework and practice immersion hours in your response.

Self-Reflection:

Based on an evaluation of your learning to date, assess your readiness for undertaking your DPI project. How has what you learned in your coursework and practice immersion hours and application of learning in your practice informed your approach to your project? What do you need to revise in your 10 Strategic Points document and/or your Draft Prospectus to successfully implement your project? Reflect on your progress to this point and outline the steps necessary to successfully complete your DPI Project Proposal for the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in DNP-955.

Apply Rubrics

Benchmark Assignment – Comprehensive Assessment Part Two: Outcomes and Reflection

1
No Submission
0.00%

2
Incomplete Submission
74.00%

3
Nominal Submission
79.00%

4
Satisfactory Submission
87.00%

5
Exemplary Submission
100.00%

9.0 %Outcome 1

5.0 %Apply Science-Based Theories and Concepts to Determine the Nature and Significance of Health and Health Care Delivery Phenomena. Benchmark (C: 1.2)

No submission.

Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria.

Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete.

Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

4.0 %Employ Science-Based Theories and Concepts to Describe the Actions and Advanced Strategies to Enhance, Alleviate, and Ameliorate Health and Health Care Delivery Phenomena as Appropriate. Benchmark (C: 1.3)

No submission.

Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria.

Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete.

Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

9.0 %Outcome 2

3.0 %Employ Principles of Business, Finance, Economics, and Health Policy to Develop and Implement Effective Plans for Practice-Level or System-Wide Practice Initiatives That Will Improve the Quality of Health Care Delivery. Benchmark (C: 2.1)

No submission.

Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria.

Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete.

Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

3.0 %Demonstrate Leadership, Influence, and Advocacy in the Development and Implementation of Institutional, Local, State, Federal, or International Health Policy. Benchmark (C: 2.2)

No submission.

Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria.

Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete.

Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

3.0 %Provide Leadership in the Evaluation and Resolution of Policy, Ethical, and Legal Issues Within Health Care Systems. Benchmark (C: 2.4)

No submission.

Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria.

Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete.

Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

9.0 %Outcome 3

2.0 %Demonstrate the Conceptual Ability and Technical Skills to Develop and Execute an Evaluation Plan Involving Data Extraction From Practice Information Systems and Databases. Benchmark (C: 3.1)

No submission.

Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria.

Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete.

Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

2.0 %Evaluate Current Consumer Health Information Sources for Accuracy, Timeliness, and Appropriateness.Benchmark (C: 3.2)

No submission.

Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria.

Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete.

Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

2.0 %Analyze and communicate critical elements necessary to the selection, use, and evaluation of health information systems and patient care technology. Benchmark (C: 3.3)

No submission.

Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria.

Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete.

Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

3.0 %Design, Select, Use, and Evaluate Programs That Monitor Outcomes of Care, Care Systems, and Quality Improvement, Including Consumer Use of Health Care Information Systems. Benchmark (C: 3.4)

No submission.

Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria.

Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete.

Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

9.0 %Outcome 4

5.0 %Analyze Epidemiological, Biostatistical, Environmental, and Other Appropriate Scientific Data Related to Individual, Aggregate, and Population Health. Benchmark (C: 4.1)

No submission.

Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria.

Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete.

Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

4.0 %Advocate for Social Justice, Equity, and Ethical Policies Within All Health Care Arenas. Benchmark (C: 4.4)

No submission.

Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria.

Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete.

Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

9.0 %Outcome 5

5.0 %Design and Implement Processes/Strategies That Evaluate Outcomes of Practice, Practice Patterns, and Systems of Care For Individual, Aggregate, and Populations Against National Benchmarks. Benchmark (C: 5.2)

No submission.

Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria.

Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete.

Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

4.0 %Design, Direct, and Evaluate Quality Improvement Methodologies to Promote Safe, Timely, Effective, Efficient, Equitable, and Patient-Centered Care. Benchmark (C: 5.3)

No submission.

Submission includes insufficient incorporation of the required criteria.

Submission includes minimal evidence of the required outcome criteria. Support is vague or incomplete.

Submission includes adequate evidence of the required outcome criteria. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes comprehensive and convincing evidence of the required outcome criteria. The submission further provides analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.

25.0 %Self-Reflection

25.0 %Assessment of Readiness to Undertake the DPI Project Based on Self-Evaluation of Program Content Learning

No submission.

Submission includes a partial or incomplete assessment of the readiness of learner to undertake the DPI project, or the submission does not incorporate self-evaluation of program content learning.

Submission includes minimal assessment of the readiness of learner to undertake the DPI project and insufficient self-evaluation of program content learning.

Submission includes an adequate assessment of the readiness of learner to undertake the DPI project which incorporates a sufficient self-evaluation of program content learning. Discussion is thorough and defines specific elements but is not as complete as expected.

Submission includes a comprehensive and thorough assessment of the readiness of learner to undertake the DPI project. The self-evaluation of program content learning component is robust. The submission provides insightful analysis of supporting evidence with specific, relevant examples. Level of detail is appropriate.

20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness

7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose

No submission.

Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.

Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction

No submission.

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 progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

No submission.

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

10.0 %Format

5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and the assignment)

No submission.

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.

5.0 %APA Format

No submission.

Required format is attempted, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Some sources are not scholarly research or topic-related. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used.

Required format is used correctly, although some minor errors may be present. Scholarly research sources are present and topic-related, but the source and quality of some references is questionable. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present.

Required format is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting. Scholarly research accounts for the majority of sources presented and is topic-related and obtained from reputable professional sources. Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct.

The document is correctly formatted to publication standards. All research presented is scholarly, topic-related, and obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.

100 %Total Weightage

Once you get frustrated and struggling to accomplish your work on time, you need online assignment help. We understand your needs and provides you with reliable writing specialists to complete your projects at an affordable price.

Get a 15% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE15


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Looking for this or a Similar Assignment? Click below to Place your Order

×

Hello!

Click one of our contacts below to chat on WhatsApp

× How can I help you?