Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
550-600 words, APA 6 format, in-text citation, Use at least two (2) scholarly references to substantiate your work. Please provide a copy of all references used.
**Reference and links to the ” review standards on this website” section and four case study videos are provided below
Assignment Details
Racial and ethnic diversity is increasing in the United States, and healthcare organizations have been working to decrease inequities in access and quality of healthcare. Delivery of healthcare services must be responsive to an individuals communication needs, preferred language, health-literacy level, and cultural beliefs and practices. To help healthcare organizations establish guidelines for meeting the needs of a diverse patient population, the Office of Minority Health of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) developed the Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) standards. The CLAS standards are designed to improve health outcomes and reduce health inequities by showing respect for the culture and language preferences of patients.
Review the standards on this Web site.**
Consider the CLAS standards as you watch the following case study videos: **
Cultural and Religious Beliefs
Using Language Access Services
Culturally Tailored Healthcare in Orthopedics
Culturally Tailored Healthcare in Obstetrics
Choose 1 video case study as the basis for your writing assignment, and answer the following questions:
Briefly describe what type of healthcare inequity was depicted in the video.
Which CLAS standards are or are not demonstrated in the video? How would meeting the standards reduce health inequity in the example that you chose?
What could the healthcare organization do better to provide patients with the best care and eliminate the health inequities illustrated in the video?
If you were faced with similar types of situations in the future, explain how you would be better prepared to handle them appropriately after viewing the standards.
**Reference and links to case study videos
HHS Office of Minority Health. (2016a, August 8). Think cultural health case study: Culturally tailored health care in obstetrics [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwsV09K4n0s
HHS Office of Minority Health. (2016b, August 8). Think cultural health case study: Using language access services [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxT9VILjXAU
Think Cultural Health. (2019a, May 1). Think cultural health case study: Cultural and religious beliefs [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKbXpuE6ZKA&feature=emb_logo
Think Cultural Health. (2019b, May 1). Think cultural health case study: Culturally tailored healthcare in orthopedics [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkbcMt48ylg
**Reference and links to ” review standards on this website” section
Think Cultural Health. (n.d.). National culturally and linguistically appropriate services standards. Office of Minority Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://thinkculturalhealth.hhs.gov/clas/standards
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 |
Think cultural health case study