4-2 Healthcare Leader Interview: Leadership in Action Listen ReadSpeaker webRead

4-2 Healthcare Leader Interview: Leadership in Action
Listen
ReadSpeaker webReader: Listen
Focus
Hide Assignment Information
Turnitin®
Turnitin® enabledThis assignment will be submitted to Turnitin®.
Instructions
Submit your interview here. Next, using your notes from the interview, write a journal assignment or create a podcast.
For additional details, please refer to the Healthcare Leader Interview Guidelines and Rubric PDF document.
Hide Rubrics
Rubric Name: Healthcare Leader Interview Rubric
Print Rubric
Criteria
Exemplary
Proficient
Needs Improvement
Not Evident
Criterion Score
Leadership: Definition
30 points
Meets “Proficient” criteria and definition is substantiated by examples from interview
27 points
Defines what it means to be a leader, including a leader in the field of public health
21 points
Defines what it means to be a leader, but minimally defines what it means to be a leader in the field of public health
0 points
Does not define what it means to be a leader
Score of Leadership: Definition, / 30
Leadership: Examples
30 points
Meets “Proficient” criteria and cites specific passages from interview to provide specific examples
27 points
Provides examples of how interviewee demonstrates leadership on a daily basis
21 points
Minimally provides examples of how interviewee demonstrates leadership on a daily basis
0 points
Does not provide examples of how interviewee demonstrates leadership on a daily basis
Score of Leadership: Examples, / 30
Leadership:Significance
30 points
Meets “Proficient” criteria and examination is substantiated by examples from interview
27 points
Examines the significance of leadership in public health including how leadership helps solve organizational or community issues
21 points
Examines the significance of leadership in public health but minimally examines how leadership helps solve organizational or community issues
0 points
Does not examine the significance of leadership in public health
Score of Leadership:Significance, / 30
Articulation of Response
10 points
Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format
9 points
Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization
7 points
Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas
0 points
Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas
Score of Articulation of Response, / 10
Total
Score of Healthcare Leader Interview Rubric, / 100
Overall Score
Points earned out of 100
91 points minimum
The overall submission earned 91 points or more. Final calculation of grades can be found in the gradebook.
Points earned out of 100
71 points minimum
The overall submission earned 71 points or more. Final calculation of grades can be found in the gradebook.
Points earned out of 100
1 point minimum
The overall submission earned 1 points or more. Final calculation of grades can be found in the gradebook.
Points earned out of 100
0 points minimum
The overall submission earned 0 points or more. Final calculation of grades can be found in the gradebook.

 

 

3-2 Final Project One: Policy Evaluation Proposal Listen ReadSpeaker webReader:

3-2 Final Project One: Policy Evaluation Proposal
Listen
ReadSpeaker webReader: Listen
Focus
Hide Assignment Information
Turnitin®
Turnitin® enabledThis assignment will be submitted to Turnitin®.
Instructions
Use the Policy Evaluation Proposal Template Word Document to submit this final project.
Submit your Final Project One paper here.
For additional details, please refer to the Final Project One Guidelines and Rubric PDF document
Hide Rubrics
Rubric Name: Final Project One Guidelines and Rubric
Print Rubric
Criteria
Exemplary
Proficient
Needs Improvement
Not Evident
Criterion Score
Policy Description
10 points
Meets Proficient criteria and demonstrates keen insight into the connection between the policy and public health
9 points
Summarizes the policy, clarifying the connection between the policy and public health
7 points
Summarizes the policy, clarifying the connection between the policy and public health, but summary is incomplete or contains inaccuracies
0 points
Does not summarize the policy, clarifying the connection between the policy and public health
Score of Policy Description, / 10
Purpose and Context for Policy Evaluation
14 points
Meets Proficient criteria and demonstrates keen insight into the purpose and context of the evaluation
12.6 points
Determines the purpose and context of the evaluation, including who is asking for the information, why the information is needed, how the information will be used, timeline for results, availability of resources, and level of rigor
9.8 points
Determines the purpose and context of the evaluation, including who is asking for the information, why the information is needed, how the information will be used, timeline for results, availability of resources, and level of rigor, but response is incomplete or contains inaccuracies
0 points
Does not determine the purpose and context of the evaluation, including who is asking for the information, why the information is needed, how the information will be used, timeline for results, availability of resources, and level of rigor
Score of Purpose and Context for Policy Evaluation, / 14
Scope of Health Equity Impact
14 points
Meets Proficient criteria and demonstrates keen insight into vulnerable or marginalized populations
12.6 points
Lists the vulnerable or marginalized populations affected by the policy
9.8 points
Lists the vulnerable or marginalized populations affected by the policy, but list is incomplete or contains inaccuracies
0 points
Does not list the vulnerable or marginalized populations affected by the policy
Score of Scope of Health Equity Impact, / 14
Logic Model of Policy (Intended Consequences)
14 points
Meets Proficient criteria and demonstrates keen insight into depicting the pathways between the activities of the specific policy process domain and specific outcomes, and the links between short-term and longer-term outcomes and impacts
12.6 points
Constructs a logic model that displays inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts as a sequence, visually depicting the pathways between the activities of the specific policy process domain and specific outcomes, and the links between short-term and longer-term outcomes and impacts
9.8 points
Constructs a logic model that displays inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts as a sequence, but logic model is incomplete and/or fails to visually depict the pathways between the activities of the specific policy process domain and specific outcomes, and the links between short-term and longer-term outcomes and impacts
0 points
Does not construct a logic model that displays inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts as a sequence, visually depicting the pathways between the activities of the specific policy process domain and specific outcomes, and the links between short-term and longer-term outcomes and impacts
Score of Logic Model of Policy (Intended Consequences), / 14
Analysis of Unintended Consequences
14 points
Meets Proficient criteria and demonstrates keen insight into unintended consequences
12.6 points
Specifies the following types of unintended consequences: counterproductive policy effects, ineffective policy effects, and by-products or out-of-scope outcomes or populations
9.8 points
Specifies the following types of unintended consequences: counterproductive policy effects, ineffective policy effects, and by-products or out-of-scope outcomes or populations, but response is incomplete or contains inaccuracies
0 points
Does not specify the following types of unintended consequences: counterproductive policy effects, ineffective policy effects, and by-products or out-of-scope outcomes or populations
Score of Analysis of Unintended Consequences, / 14
Policy Evaluation Proposal Indicators and Collection Strategies
14 points
Meets Proficient criteria and demonstrates keen insight into indicators and collection strategies for one or more of the evaluation questions
12.6 points
Details indicators and collection strategies for (1) formative evaluation question, (2) summative evaluation question, and (3) outcome evaluation question
9.8 points
Details indicators and collection strategies for (1) the formative evaluation question, (2) the summative evaluation question, and (3) the outcome evaluation question, but one or more indicator or collection strategy is/are incorrectly identified
0 points
Does not detail indicators and collection strategies for (1) formative evaluation question, (2) summative evaluation question, and (3) outcome evaluation question
Score of Policy Evaluation Proposal Indicators and Collection Strategies, / 14
Ensuring Evaluation Quality
14 points
Meets Proficient criteria and demonstrates keen insight into the elements of the CDC’s Framework
12.6 points
Assesses the quality using CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation: (1) utility, (2) feasibility, (3) propriety, and (4) accuracy
9.8 points
Assesses the quality using CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation: (1) utility, (2) feasibility, (3) propriety, and (4) accuracy, but response is cursory or contains inaccuracies
0 points
Does not assess the quality using CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation: (1) utility, (2) feasibility, (3) propriety, and (4) accuracy
Score of Ensuring Evaluation Quality, / 14
Articulation of Response
6 points
Submission has no errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, or syntax
5.4 points
Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, or syntax
4.2 points
Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, or syntax that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas
0 points
Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, or syntax that prevent understanding of ideas
Score of Articulation of Response, / 6
Total
Score of Final Project One Guidelines and Rubric, / 100
Overall Score
Points earned out of 100
91 points minimum
The overall submission earned 91 points or more. Final calculation of grades can be found in the gradebook.
Points earned out of 100
71 points minimum
The overall submission earned 71 points or more. Final calculation of grades can be found in the gradebook.
Points earned out of 100
1 point minimum
The overall submission earned 1 points or more. Final calculation of grades can be found in the gradebook.
Points earned out of 100
0 points minimum
The overall submission earned 0 points or more. Final calculation of grades can be found in the gradebook.
Associated Learning Objectives
Learning Objective
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – Policy Description
Required Performance: Proficient
Learning Objective
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – Purpose and Context for Policy Evaluation
Required Performance: Proficient
Learning Objective
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – Scope of Health Equity Impact
Required Performance: Proficient
Learning Objective
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – Logic Model of Policy (Intended Consequences)
Required Performance: Proficient
Learning Objective
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – Analysis of Unintended Consequences
Required Performance: Proficient
Learning Objective
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – Policy Evaluation Proposal Indicators and Collection Strategies
Required Performance: Proficient
Learning Objective
Assessment Method: Score on Criteria – Ensuring Evaluation Quality
Required Performance: Proficient
Submit Assignment

 

 

Organizational Behavior Management (OBM) plays a key role in preventing and redu

Organizational Behavior Management (OBM) plays a key role in preventing and reducing medical errors. Based on the reading, how does OBM impact the reduction of medical errors? Your response should be 1 – 2 pages.
You must use APA format. Your essay should be double-spaced with 1″ margins on all sides. You should use a 12 point font that is legible.

 

 

The Toyota Motor Company was instrumental in developing lean management concepts

The Toyota Motor Company was instrumental in developing lean management concepts. Write a 1 – 2 page review of Toyota’s introduction of lean management and healthcare’s progress on adopting lean models.
You must use APA format. Your essay should be double-spaced with 1″ margins on all sides. You should use a 12-point font that is legible.

 

 

2-2 Short Paper: Policy Reforms Listen ReadSpeaker webReader: Listen Focus Hide

2-2 Short Paper: Policy Reforms
Listen
ReadSpeaker webReader: Listen
Focus
Hide Assignment Information
Turnitin®
Turnitin® enabledThis assignment will be submitted to Turnitin®.
Instructions
Submit your short paper here.
For additional details, please refer to the Module Two Short Paper Guidelines and Rubric PDF document.
Hide Rubrics
Rubric Name Module Two Short Paper Rubric
Print Rubric
Criteria
Exemplary
Proficient
Needs Improvement
Not Evident
Criterion Score
Restrictions
30 points
Meets “Proficient” criteria and examples of restrictions provided are substantiated by research
27 points
Identifies examples of how the U.S. government is restricted from adopting sweeping policy reform to address an identified public health issue
21 points
Minimally identifies examples of how the U.S. government is restricted from adopting sweeping policy reform to address an identified public health issue
0 points
Does not identify examples of how the U.S. government is restricted from adopting sweeping policy reform to address an identified public health issue
Score of Restrictions, / 30
Pros and Cons
30 points
Meets “Proficient” criteria and explanation provides concrete examples of the pros and cons of the restriction
27 points
Explains at least one pro and one con of the restriction
21 points
Explains at least one pro and one con of the restriction, but explanation is not clear or is lacking in detail
0 points
Does not explain at least one pro and one con of the restriction
Score of Pros and Cons, / 30
Alternative
30 points
Meets “Proficient” criteria and uses specific relevant examples to support alternatives proposed
27 points
Proposes an alternative way to solve the public health issue and considers population health improvement
21 points
Proposes an alternative way to solve the public health issue, but minimally considers population health improvement
0 points
Does not propose an alternative way to solve the public health issue or consider population health improvement
Score of Alternative, / 30
Articulation of Response
10 points
Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format
9 points
Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization
7 points
Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas
0 points
Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas
Score of Articulation of Response, / 10
Total
Score of Module Two Short Paper Rubric, / 100
Overall Score
Points earned out of 100
91 points minimum
The overall submission earned 91 points or more. Final calculation of grades can be found in the gradebook.
Points earned out of 100
71 points minimum
The overall submission earned 71 points or more. Final calculation of grades can be found in the gradebook.
Points earned out of 100
1 point minimum
The overall submission earned 1 points or more. Final calculation of grades can be found in the gradebook.
Points earned out of 100
0 points minimum
The overall submission earned 0 points or more. Final calculation of grades can be found in the gradebook.

 

 

Issue 1 Termination of employment Issue 2 Termination of employees for financia

Issue 1
Termination of employment
Issue 2
Termination of employees for financial necessity
Instructions:
For each issue do 1 paragraph followed by a narrative response which detail analyzes the issue as it relate to the Kirk V Mercy Hosp, case on chapter 20 in the book on page 1174- 1221. And after that cited 3 authoritative external sources for each issues.
Very important: External Authoritative Sources” for purposes of this assignment shall mean: articles from published books, peer reviewed journal articles at least have 1 author, education and government sites as well as non-partisan national or international organizations (such as WHO, UNICEF, UNAIDS etc) provided, however the article selected must have: Authors name and In text citations and references to support statements made there in. For example if want to use CDC that article need to have references and citations. if it doesn’t have references and citation don’t used them. Any “direct quote” in the narrative must include the page, the year of the publication and the name of the author in the citation.
Very important: Under no circumstances are newspapers (e.g., the Wall Street Journal), blogs (regardless of source), editorials, panel discussions, definition of terms, “dot com” sites, and the text books from the course or other courses to be used. The foregoing are not considered authoritative external sources for this assignment. Don’t include the text book, the case, don’t include definition for references.
A source cannot be referenced unless it was cited in the narrative answer.

 

 

Topic: Screening, Surveillance and Epidemiologic Methods of HIV/AIDS Disc

Topic: Screening, Surveillance and Epidemiologic Methods of HIV/AIDS
Discuss current HIV testing recommendations in the United States
· Explain steps of partner counseling and referral
· Describe HIV/AIDS surveillance systems in US
· List HIV and AIDS case definitions in US
· Discuss ethical issues related to surveillance systems
· List criteria to evaluate surveillance systems
· Discuss importance of surveillance in control and prevention of HIV
. Please complete two paragraphs for two different post.
Resources:
. Rennie S, Behets F. Desperately seeking targets: the ethics of routine HIV testing in low-income countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2006; 84(1):52–57.
· Pisani E, Lazzari S, Walker N, Schwartländer B. HIV Surveillance: a global perspective. JAIDS. 2003;32:S3–S11. Available on reserve.
· NYTimes: AIDS research finds 13 vulnerable spots in virus life cycle. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/100290sci-aids.html

 

 

Hi, I only need body paragraphs, NO introduction and conclusion. My top three st

Hi,
I only need body paragraphs, NO introduction and conclusion.
My top three strengths are discipline, focus and achiever.
I included a pdf of the results of my StrengthFinder assessment and a picture of the rubric. Please follow the rubric
Please write a three paragraph reflection paper on;
1. How will you use your top three (3) strength(s) to be successful in the Dental Hygiene Program?
2. Provide examples of how your top three (3) strength(s) will promote teamwork?
3. Are there other strengths that you may need to further develop to be successful in the Dental Hygiene Program?

Please use college level grammar using correct spelling and punctuation and the paper will be graded according to the rubric. A reflection paper may be written in first person.