Walden University Operational Resources and Productivity Discussion
Description
COMPETENCY DISCUSSION
Contains unread posts
Must post first.
For your Competency Discussion, based on the healthcare organization where you work or one in which you are familiar, consider how productivity metrics are used to increase productivity and improve quality. Next, think about how the organization used a balanced scorecard to reveal the results of quantitative and qualitative measures. Finally, reflect on how performance has improved healthcare in this organization.
To begin this Competency and meet your required engagement, post in the Discussion area a brief description of the healthcare organization you selected. Next, describe how productivity metrics are used in the organization to increase productivity and improve quality. Then explain how the organization used a balanced scorecard to reveal the results of quantitative and qualitative measures. Finally, describe how performance has improved healthcare in this organization.
You must start a thread before you can read and reply to other threads
OM005 Assessment Instructions
Review the details of your assessment including the rubric. You will have the ability to submit the assessment once you submit your required pre-assessments and engage with your Faculty Subject Matter Expert (SME) in a substantive way about the competency.
Overview
In this Performance Task Assessment, you will use information from the scenario provided, along with the supporting documents, to demonstrate your ability to evaluate a healthcare organization’s productivity, create a balanced scorecard, and recommend changes to optimize productivity targets measured against established benchmarks.
To complete this Assessment:
Download the Academic Writing Expectations Checklist to use as a guide when completing your Assessment. Responses that do not meet the expectations of scholarly writing will be returned without scoring. Properly formatted APA citations and references must be provided, where appropriate.
Be sure to use scholarly academic resources as specified in the rubric. This means using Walden Library databases to obtain peer reviewed articles. Additionally, .gov (government expert sources) are a quality resource option. Note: Internet and .com sources do not meet this requirement. Contact your coach or SME for guidance on using Library Databases.
Carefully review the rubric for the Assessment as part of your preparation to complete your Assessment work.
This Assessment requires submission of three (3) files. Save your files as follows:
Save Part I as OM005_PartI_firstinitial_lastname (for example, OM005_PartI_J_Smith).
Save Part II (slide presentation) as OM005_PartII_firstinitial_lastname (for example, OM005_PartII_J_Smith).
Save Part III as OM005_PartIII_firstinitial_lastname (for example, OM005_PartIII_J_Smith).
You may submit a draft of your assignment to the Turnitin Draft Check area to check for authenticity. When you are ready to upload your completed Assessment, use the Assessment tab on the top navigation menu.
Instructions:
Before submitting your Assessment, carefully review the rubric. This is the same rubric the assessor will use to evaluate your submission and it provides detailed criteria describing how to achieve or master the Competency. Many students find that understanding the requirements of the Assessment and the rubric criteria help them direct their focus and use their time most productively.
Access the following to complete this Assessment:
United General Hospital Patient Privacy Case Study
Productivity Metrics Dashboard
Academic Writing Expectations Checklist
To begin, read the scenario below; the “United General Hospital Emergency Room Case Study” and other documents provided; and the “Productivity Metrics Dashboard.” Then, complete Parts I–III.
Scenario:
You have been hired as a consultant to increase productivity in United General Hospital’s emergency department. Your consulting engagement entails evaluating productivity metrics for the emergency room (ER), creating a balanced scorecard to measure the department’s performance, and then presenting recommendations to the leaders of the emergency department.
This Assessment has three-parts. Click each of the items below to complete this Assessment.
PART I: PRODUCTIVITY METRICS (WORD DOCUMENT)
As a first step in your consulting engagement, you review Ron’s experience in the ER. Using information from the case study, evaluate Ron’s experience and summarize your findings against national standards as follows (4-5 pages):
Identify 6-8 activities or processes carried out during Ron’s visit to United General. Enter the 6-8 activities or processes and their duration in the “Productivity Metrics Dashboard.” (attachment in the instructions)
Each of the 6 to 8 activities in the chart need to have completed data for the Observed Time, National Average and Differential OT vs NA. (You will complete the Acceptable differential data for the 5 activities or processes you will discuss below.)
Include the sources for all data in the sources tab in the “Productivity Metrics Dashboard.”
Write an analysis of activities and processes that create inefficiency as follows:
Identify five of the activities or processes from the case study/ included in your dashboard that create inefficiency in the emergency department.
Provide a rationale for your selection of the five activities or processes. Include cited material and References to support your assertions.
Identify any discrepancies and outline reasons why discrepancies exist.
Write an analysis of acceptable differentials for the five activities or processes as follows:
Using benchmarks determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, identify the national averages/benchmarks for five activities or processes you selected.
Enter the national averages/benchmarks in the “Productivity Metrics Dashboard.”
Determine an acceptable differential to the national benchmark for each of the 5 activities or processes and enter the differentials into the “Productivity Metrics Dashboard.”
Explain the methodology you used to determine acceptable differentials for each of the metrics for these five activities.
PART II: BALANCED SCORECARD METHODOLOGY (SLIDE PRESENTATION)
The next step in your consulting engagement is creating a balanced scorecard but, first, you must convince the executive committee that the balanced scorecard method is effective. Several members of the executive committee are not familiar with the process. An important part of your role is to educate them. You decide to show them a sample balanced scorecard for an emergency department.
Create a 5 to 7-slide presentation that explains the balanced scorecard methodology, including at least two strengths and two limitations, and the benefits of using the balanced scorecard methodology in United General Hospital’s emergency department.
Include a critique of the hospital’s productivity metrics results and any limitations of the current data collection process and/or metrics being used for the scorecard.
PART III: BALANCED SCORECARD CREATION (WORD DOCUMENT)
After you explain the balanced scorecard methodology, the board and chief executive officer (CEO) wants you to create a balanced scorecard for the emergency department at United General.
Create a balanced scorecard for United General’s emergency department. Can be completed in an image or graphic type display. (up to 2 pages)
Include both quantitative and qualitative metrics.
Explain why you selected these metrics for United General and how you identified the targets. (4-6 pages)
A defense of best practices used for productivity metrics dashboard data collection, analysis/interpretation, and action planning.
Recommend a high-level process to collect, track, and measure data for the emergency department’s productivity metrics.
Grid View
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Main Posting
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
