Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Project to Improve Clinical Assignment Quality
Goal:
For the Quality Improvement Project, conduct a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. To move forward with the SWOT analysis, you’ll need faculty approval for Project Part 1.
Requirements for content:
Determine the clinical issue’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for improvement.
Analyze the SWOT data to lay the groundwork for a quality improvement action plan.
Submission Instructions:
Students will be penalized for poor language, punctuation, and misspelling if their paper is not clear and succinct.
Aside from the title, abstract, and references page, the paper should be 2 to 3 pages long.
Include at least three current scholarly journal articles or primary legal sources (statutes, court judgments) in your work (published within the last five years).
Current APA style should be used to cite journal articles and books (the library has a copy of the APA Manual).
Your paper should be formatted according to current APA guidelines, including references to recent (within the last five years) scientific journal publications or primary legal sources (statutes, court opinions)
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow |
Project to Improve Clinical Assignment Quality