A system approach | English homework help

A system approach | English homework help

Case Study: A System ApproachReview the case study in the article, Texas Health Harris Methodist-Cleburne: A System Approach to Surgical Improvement.After reviewing the case study, construct a written paper that addresses the following:Explain organizational theories evidenced in this case study.Analyze how Texas Health Harris Methodist-Cleburne is a learning organization.Explain the organizational structure displayed in this case study.Describe the leaders involved in this case study.Discusses the role of the leaders in this case study.Including an introduction and conclusion paragraph, your paper must be three to five double-spaced pages (excluding title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.  Including the textbook, utilize a minimum of three (one of which is the case study article used for review) scholarly and/or peer-reviewed sources from the Ashford University Library that were published within the last five years.  Document all references in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center APA Checklist.Carefully review the Grading Rubric for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment Organization: Introduction, Thesis Statement, and ConclusionTotal: 0.30Distinguished – Paper is logically organized with a well-written introduction, thesis statement, and conclusionProficient – Paper is logically organized with an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion. One of these requires improvement.Basic – Paper is organized with an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion. One or more of the introduction, thesis statement, and/or conclusion require improvement.Below Expectations – Paper is loosely organized with an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion. The introduction, thesis statement, and/or conclusion require much improvement.Non-Performance – The introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructionsExplains Organizational Theories EvidencedTotal: 1.00Distinguished – Thoroughly explains organizational theories evidenced in this case study.Proficient – Explains organizational theories evidenced in this case study. Minor details are missingBasic – Minimally explains organizational theories evidenced in this case study. Relevant details are missing.Below Expectations – Attempts to explain organizational theories evidenced in this case study; however, significant details are missing.Non-Performance – The explanation of organizational theories evidenced is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.Analyzes How Texas Health Harris Methodist-Cleburne is a Learning OrganizationTotal: 1.00Distinguished – Thoroughly analyzes how Texas Health Harris Methodist-Cleburne is a learning organization.Proficient – Analyzes how Texas Health Harris Methodist-Cleburne is a learning organization. Minor details are missing.Basic – Minimally analyzes how Texas Health Harris Methodist-Cleburne is a learning organization. Relevant details are missing.Below Expectations – Attempts to analyze how Texas Health Harris Methodist-Cleburne is a learning organization; however, significant details are missing.Non-Performance – The analysis of how Texas Health Harris Methodist-Cleburne is a learning organization is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.Explains the Organizational Structure DisplayedTotal: 1.00Distinguished – Thoroughly explains the organizational structure displayed in this case study.Proficient – Explains the organizational structure displayed in this case study. Minor details are missing.Basic – Minimally explains the organizational structure displayed in this case study. Relevant details are missing.Below Expectations – Attempts to explain the organizational structure displayed in this case study; however, significant details are missing.Non-Performance – The explanation of the organizational structure displayed is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.Describes the Leaders Involved in this Case StudyTotal: 0.50Distinguished – Comprehensively describes the leaders involved in this case study.Proficient – Describes the leaders involved in this case study. Minor details are missing.Basic -Minimally describes the leaders involved in this case study. Relevant details are missing.Below Expectations – Attempts to describe the leaders involved in this case study; however, significant details are missing.Non-Performance -The description of the leaders involved in this case study is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.Discusses the Role of the Leaders in this Case StudyTotal: 1.00Distinguished – Thoroughly discusses the role of the leaders in this case study.Proficient – Discusses the role of the leaders in this case study. Minor details are missing.Basic – Minimally discusses the role of the leaders in this case study. Relevant details are missing.Below Expectations – Attempts to discuss the role of the leaders in this case study; but significant details are missing.Non-Performance – The discussion of the role of the leaders in this case study is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions.Critical Thinking: Explanation of IssuesTotal: 0.60Distinguished – Clearly and comprehensively explains the issue to be considered, delivering all relevant information necessary for a full understanding.Proficient – Clearly explains the issue to be considered, delivering enough relevant information for an adequate understanding.Basic – Briefly explains the issue to be considered, delivering minimal information for a basic understanding.Below Expectations – Briefly explains the issue to be considered, but may not deliver additional information necessary for a basic understanding.Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions. Written Communication: Control of Syntax and MechanicsTotal: 0.15Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.Basic – Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors which may slightly distract the reader.Below Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors which distract the reader.Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.Written Communication: APA FormattingTotal: 0.15Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.Proficient – Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors. Basic – Exhibits limited knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements. Below Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.Written Communication: Page RequirementTotal: 0.15Distinguished – The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages. Proficient – The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages. Basic – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages.Below Expectations – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted pages.   Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.Written Communication: Resource RequirementTotal: 0.15Distinguished – Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.Proficient – Uses the required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.Basic – Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.Below Expectations – Uses an inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly.Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.Lashbrook, A. (2009). Texas Health Harris Methodist–Cleburne: A system approach to surgical improvement. The Commonwealth Fund. Retrieved from http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Case%20Study/2009/Dec/1360_Lashbrook_Texas_Health_case_study.pdfRequired Text Frates, J. (2014). Health care management: Theory in action . San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.This text is a Constellation™ course digital materials (CDM) title.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>