Order this Assignment Now: £179 VALID THRU: 18-May-2024
LO1: Identify and use appropriate improvement tools in order to map and analyse a healthcare process, making recommendations for improvement
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Quality Improvement in Health and Social Care
Assessment:
Reflective Account
Assessment code:
010
Academic Year:
2022/2023
Trimester:
3
Module Title:
Quality Improvement in Health and Social Care
Module Code:
MOD006923
Level:
7
Module Leader:
Weighting:
100%
Word Limit:
2500
This excludes bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.75 of the Academic Regulations: http:/ /we b.angl ia.ac.uk /a n et/ acad em ic/publ ic /a ca de m ic_ reg s . pdf
Assessed Learning Outcomes:
LO1: Identify and use appropriate improvement tools in order to map and analyse a healthcare process, making recommendations for improvement.
LO2: Develop an improvement plan including consideration of all stakeholder groups.
LO3: Reflect on the improvement tools used, the improvement plan proposed and their personal development associated with the process of producing a defined improvement proposal.
Submission
Deadline:
Please refer to the deadline on the VLE
WRITING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
This assignment must be completed individually.
You must use the Harvard referencing system.
Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. Written assignments must not exceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation 6.74).
Assignment submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on your work.
Write your student ID number at the top of every page.
Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in a single document.
You must number all pages.
SUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT: In order to achieve full marks, you must submit your work before the deadline. Work that is submitted late – if your work is submitted on the same day as the deadline by midnight, your mark will receive a 10% penalty. If you submit your work up to two working days after the published submission deadline – it will be accepted and marked. However, the element of the module’s assessment to which the work contributes will be capped with a maximum mark of 40%.
Work cannot be submitted if the period of 2 working days after the deadline has passed (unless there is an approved extension). Failure to submit within the relevant period will mean that you have failed the assessment.
Requests for short-term extensions will only be considered in the case of illness or other cause considered valid by the Director of Studies Team. Please contact DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. A request must normally be received and agreed by the Director of Studies Team in writing at least 24 hours prior to the deadline. See rules 6.64-6.73:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
Mi tig atio n : The deadline for submission of mitigation in relation to this assignment is no later than five working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact the Director of Studies Team - DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. See rules 6.112 – 6.141:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
ASSIGNMENT TASKS
Use quality improvement approaches and tools to improve the quality of a GP practice. The service should be selected from the CQC website at https://www.cqc.org.uk/care-services (60 marks )
Reflect on your experience of using quality improvement approaches and tools using an appropriate reflective model, such as Gibbs or Kolb. (30 Marks )
Demonstration of academic skills and adherence to scholarly conventions (10 Marks) TOTAL: 100 Marks
ASSIGNMENT GUIDANCE
In writing your critical reflection you are expected to use theoretical tools and approaches that you have studied during the course and from your research, and make reference to credible evidence.
It is expected that you will use more than 10 independently researched academic sources from the ARU library.
ASSIGNMENT CORE READING
Dale, B., Bamford, D., & van der Wiele, T. (Eds.) (2016). Managing Quality: An Essential Guide and Resource Gateway . (6th edition.) Wiley.
Moon, J. (2004). A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning. London, Routledge Available through Kortext and/or ARU Library.
MARKING CRITERIA Assignment submissions will be marked with reference to the below criteria, as summarised in Table 1, based on ARU Level 7 generic grading criteria, Table 2. Note that in applying the criteria consideration will be given to the following:
The quality improvement approaches and tools that are selected are covered in the module.
The selection of quality improvement approaches and tools is justified and discussed with reference to academic literature.
The reflection must cover the use and application of the chosen quality improvements tools and/or quality improvement approaches to address the quality improvement issues for the chosen service.
The role of reflection in healthcare has been critically analysed.
There is an analysis of models of reflection, and application of a chosen model.
Academic literature is used to support the discussion of the points made in relation to the assignment topic. References may also include government legislation and policy.
Table 1: Marking criteria
A qualifying answer (30-39%)
A basic answer (40-49%) identifies main issues and demonstrates knowledge, at a superficial level with little discussion as to how this is applied. It demonstrates difficulties and expression lacks academic maturity. Answers in this category often adopt a write-all-you- know-about-the-topic approach including little or no application.
A satisfactory answer (50-59%) determines most issues and demonstrates knowledge and starts to discuss how this could be applied. There are some omissions in content as well as some inconsistencies in application and inaccuracies in expression. Structure is generally quite logical.
A good answer (60-69%) adopts a logical structure and identifies pertinent theories, to underpin the work, discussing how their ideas might be applied. Arguments are supported by relevant contemporary theories and paradigms. Omissions and inaccuracies are minor.
An excellent answer (70 %+) adopts a logical structure and identifies pertinent theories, with depth, flair and imagination and discusses how this may be applied. Arguments are supported by a wide range of relevant contemporary academic theories and paradigms. Relevant theory is critiqued and applied before reaching balanced conclusion(s).
An outstanding answer (80 %+)
An exceptional answer (90 %+)
Table 2: ARU GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS: LEVEL 7 – postgraduate
taught
Level 7 is characterised by an expectation of students’ expertise in their specialism. Students are semi-autonomous, demonstrating independence in the negotiation of assessment tasks (including the major project) and the ability to evaluate, challenge, modify and develop theory and practice. Students are expected to demonstrate an ability to isolate and focus on the significant features of problems and to offer synthetic and coherent solutions, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism that is worthy of publication or public performance or display.
Mark Bands
Outcome
Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band for ARU’s Generic Learning Outcomes (Academic Regulations, Section 2)
Knowledge & Understanding
Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills
90-
100%
Achieves module outcome(s)
Exceptional analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics with very clear originality and autonomy. Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument making an exceptional use of scholarly conventions.
Demonstrates exceptional independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication
Exceptional analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics. Exceptional development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Exceptional research skills, independence of thought, an extremely high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, exceptional expressive/professional skills, and substantial creativity and originality. Exceptional academic/ intellectual skills. Work pushes the boundaries of the discipline and may be considered for external publication
80-
89%
Outstanding analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics with clear originality and autonomy. Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument making an exemplary use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates outstanding independence of thought and a very high level of intellectual rigour and consistency. Use quality improvement approaches and tools to improve the quality of a GP practice. The service should be selected from the CQC website at https://www.cqc.org.uk/care-services
Outstanding analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics. Outstanding development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Outstanding research skills, independence of thought, a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency, outstanding expressive/professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Outstanding academic/intellectual skills
70-
79%
Excellent analysis of key issues/ concepts/ethics. Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument making excellent use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates excellent independence of thought and a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency
Excellent analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Excellent development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Excellent research skills, indepen- dence of thought, excellent level of intellectual rigour and consistency, excellent expressive/ professional skills, and considerable creativity and originality. Excellent academic/ intellectual skills, and considerable creativity and originality
60-
69%
Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ ethics. Development of conceptual structures and argument making consistent use of scholarly conventions
Good analysis of key issues/concepts/ethics. Development of conceptual structures and argument, making consistent use of scholarly conventions
50-
59%
Sound knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Descrip- tive in parts but some ability to synth- esise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions
Sound knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in discipline. Descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesise scholarship and argument. Minor lapses in use of scholarly conventions
40-
49%
A marginal pass in module outcome(s)
Adequate knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Generally descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and little argument. Inconsistent use of scholarly conventions
Adequate knowledge of key issues/concepts/ ethics in discipline. Generally descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and little argument. Inconsistent use of scholarly conventions
30-
39%
A marginal fail in module outcome(s).
Satisfies default qualifying mark
Limited knowledge of key issues/ concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with restricted synthesis of existing scholarship and limited argument. Limited use of scholarly conventions.
Limited research skills impede use of learning resources and problem solving. Significant problems with structure/accuracy in expression. Team/Practical/Professional skills not yet secure. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Limited use of scholarly conventions
20-
29%
Fails to achieve module outcome(s).
Qualifying mark not satisfied
Little evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Largely descriptive, with little synthesis of existing scholarship and little evidence of argument. Little evidence of use of scholarly conventions.
Little evidence of research skills, use of learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/ accuracy in expression. Team/ Practical/Professional skills virtually absent. Little evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Little evidence of use of scholarly conventions
10-
19%
Deficient knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Wholly descriptive, with deficient synthesis of existing scholarship and deficient argument. Deficient use of scholarly conventions.
Deficient use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Major problems with structure/accuracy in expression.
Team/Practical/Professional skills absent. Deficient academic/intellectual skills. Deficient use of scholarly conventions. LO1: Identify and use appropriate improvement tools in order to map and analyse a healthcare process, making recommendations for improvement.
1-
9%
No evidence of knowledge of key issues/concepts/ethics in discipline. Incoherent and completely but poorly descriptive, with no evidence of synthesis of existing scholarship and no argument whatsoever. No evidence of use of scholarly conventions.
No evidence of use of research skills, learning resources and problem solving. Incoherent structure/accuracy in expression. Team/ Practical/Professional skills non-existent. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. No evidence of use of scholarly conventions
0%
Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (eg: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes
Order this Assignment Now:£179
100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions
