- Grid View
- List View
| Excellent | Proficient | Basic | Needs Improvement | |
| Required Content Identified the quality improvement practice problem in measurable terms that reflect quality indicators. | 9 (6%) – 10 (6.67%)Provided a fully developed quality improvement problem in measurable terms that reflect quality indicators with insightful analysis of concepts and related issues. | 8 (5.33%) – 8 (5.33%)Provided a developed quality improvement problem in measurable terms that reflect quality indicators with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues. | 7 (4.67%) – 7 (4.67%)Provided a minimally developed quality improvement problem in measurable terms that reflect quality indicators with limited analysis of concepts and related issues. | 0 (0%) – 6 (4%)Provided an under-developed quality improvement problem or is not in measurable terms that reflect quality indicators with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues. |
| Required Content Included data that suggests a practice problem exists. | 9 (6%) – 10 (6.67%)Provided a fully developed description of data that suggests a practice problem exists with insightful analysis of concepts and related issues. | 8 (5.33%) – 8 (5.33%)Provided a developed description of data that suggests a practice problem exists with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues. | 7 (4.67%) – 7 (4.67%)Provided a minimally developed description of data that suggests a practice problem exists with limited analysis of concepts and related issues. | 0 (0%) – 6 (4%)Provided an under-developed description of data that suggests a practice problem exists with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues. |
| Required Content Provided the purpose statement/rationale for selecting the practice problem including the importance of improving patient outcomes. | 18 (12%) – 20 (13.33%)Provided a fully developed purpose statement/rationale for the quality improvement problem with insightful analysis of concepts and related issues. | 16 (10.67%) – 17 (11.33%)Provided a developed purpose statement/rationale for the quality improvement problem with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues. | 14 (9.33%) – 15 (10%)Provided a minimally developed purpose statement/rationale for the quality improvement problem with limited analysis of concepts and related issues. | 0 (0%) – 13 (8.67%)Provided an under-developed purpose statement/rationale for the quality improvement problem with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues. |
| Required Content Synthesize the findings from the analysis of evidence that support the practice problem and meets all requirements. | 36 (24%) – 40 (26.67%)Provided a fully developed synthesis of findings from the analysis of evidence. | 32 (21.33%) – 35 (23.33%)Provided a developed synthesis of the findings from the analysis of evidence. | 28 (18.67%) – 31 (20.67%)Provided a minimally developed synthesis of the findings with limited analysis of the evidence. | 0 (0%) – 27 (18%)Provided an under-developed synthesis with little or no analysis of the evidence. |
| Required Content Applied a quality improvement process and quality model to the practice problem and explain why they were chosen. | 23 (15.33%) – 25 (16.67%)Provided a fully developed discussion of the selected quality improvement process and quality model including explanation of why each was selected with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues. | 20 (13.33%) – 22 (14.67%)Provided a developed discussion of the selected quality improvement process and quality model including explanation of why each was selected with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues. | 18 (12%) – 19 (12.67%)Provided a minimally developed discussion of the selected quality improvement process and quality model including explanation of why each was selected with limited analysis of concepts and related issues. | 0 (0%) – 17 (11.33%)Provided an under-developed discussion of the selected quality improvement process and quality model including explanation of why each was selected with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues. |
| Required Content Chose a specific quality improvement tool that will be used throughout the project and explain why it was chosen. | 14 (9.33%) – 15 (10%)Provided a fully developed discussion of the selected quality improvement tool including a justification of its selection with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues. | 12 (8%) – 13 (8.67%)Provided a developed discussion of the selected quality improvement tool including a justification of its selection with reasonable analysis of concepts and related issues. | 11 (7.33%) – 11 (7.33%)Provided a minimally developed discussion of the selected quality improvement tool including a justification of its selection with limited analysis of concepts and related issues. | 0 (0%) – 10 (6.67%)Provided an under-developed discussion of the selected quality improvement tool including a justification of its selection with little or no analysis of concepts and related issues. |
| Professional Writing: Clarity, Flow, and Organization | 9 (6%) – 10 (6.67%)Content is free from spelling, punctuation, and grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates very well-formed sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is completely clear, logical, and well-organized. | 8 (5.33%) – 8 (5.33%)Content contains minor spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates appropriate sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is mostly clear, logical, and well-organized. | 7 (4.67%) – 7 (4.67%)Content contains moderate spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates adequate sentence and paragraph structure and may require some editing. Content presented is adequately clear, logical, and/or organized, but could benefit from additional editing/revision. | 0 (0%) – 6 (4%)Content contains significant spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing does not demonstrate adequate sentence and paragraph structure and requires additional editing/proofreading. Key sections of presented content lack clarity, logical flow, and/or organization. |
| Professional Writing: Context, Audience, Purpose, and Tone | 9 (6%) – 10 (6.67%)Content clearly demonstrates awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is highly professional, scholarly, and free from bias, and style is appropriate for the professional setting/workplace context. | 8 (5.33%) – 8 (5.33%)Content demonstrates satisfactory awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is adequately professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is consistent with the professional setting/workplace context. | 7 (4.67%) – 7 (4.67%)Content demonstrates basic awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is somewhat professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is mostly consistent with the professional setting/workplace context. | 0 (0%) – 6 (4%)Content minimally or does not demonstrate awareness of context, audience, and/or purpose. Writing is not reflective of professional/scholarly tone and/or is not free of bias. Style is inconsistent with the professional setting/workplace context and reflects the need for additional editing. |
| Professional Writing: Originality, Source Credibility, and Attribution of Ideas | 9 (6%) – 10 (6.67%)Content reflects original thought and writing and proper paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates full adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references. | 8 (5.33%) – 8 (5.33%)Content adequately reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates adequate adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references. | 7 (4.67%) – 7 (4.67%)Content somewhat reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing somewhat demonstrates adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references. | 0 (0%) – 6 (4%)Content does not adequately reflect original writing and/or paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates inconsistent adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and reference. |
| Total Points: 150 |
Name: NURS_4220_Week
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Assignment: Capstone Paper, Part I: Introduction, Analysis of Existing Evidence, and Quality Improvement Process
Just from $10/Page
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
