Category: Healthcare

Article Review
Typically, Executive Summaries (Article Review) are written for readers who do not have
time to read the entire technical report. An article review is usually no longer than 20
percent of the report. It can be anywhere from 3-10 pages long, depending on the report’s
length. For this assignment, please be concise and have your review written in 3-5
pages, 12 font, double spaced. Your article must be related to recent health care policies,
debates, crises, comparisons, etc., and published within the last 5 years; you must clearly
explain the economic principles/foundations used in the article. You should use headings in
your article review which may follow the format below:
• Cover page (including the title of the paper you reviewed and the journal
information of the paper)
• Introduction
• Literature Review (if included in the article)
• Methodology
• Results/Findings
• Economics Foundations of the Article (must-have)
• Conclusion
You need to find articles from the following peer reviewed journals: Journal of Health
Economics, Health Economics, American Journal of Health Economics, and American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy (for this journal, find papers in the field of health care)

. Pregnancy Prevention: Write an article about teen pregnancy, its difficulties, and how you should prevent it.

Can you create a schdule for the Nurses for all 3 sessions that are listed in the excel. You can do Spit shifts for nurses on the days that they are scheduled. You will find all the nurses listed in the tab that says “Nurse timeline” You can use the 2023 sch as a refrence but use the Nurses that are provided in the 2024 “Nurse Timeline”

Please read carefully file attached with all the information and instructions for the presentation. 

.  Perform a needs assessment for the healthcare organization described in the “Electronic Record Adoption Project Scenario” by doing the following:
1.  Describe one area needing assessment in the organization’s health information management (HIM) workflow.
2.  Explain one concern, related to adopting an EHR, that staff from the area needing assessment in part A1 may have.
3.  Explain the functional needs that staff members in the HIM department may have.
4.  Describe how the use of an EHR can affect privacy, security, and legal aspects in ways that differ from the use of a paper medical record.
B.  Based on the needs assessment results in part A, propose a project plan for adopting an EHR for the healthcare organization in the scenario by doing the following:
1.  Describe each of the elements that should be included in a project plan for adopting an EHR.
2.  Explain how to form a project team.
3.  Describe one benefit the healthcare organization could gain from adopting an EHR.
C.  Examine elements of the vendor selection process by doing the following:
1.  Justify how a cost-benefit analysis will help to focus the vendor selection process.
2.  Discuss the difference between a request for information (RFI) and a request for proposal (RFP).
a.  Explain why one might be preferred over the other.
b.  Explain why both may be used.
3.  Explain the elements included in writing a request for proposal and the information included in each element.
4.  Discuss how you would establish a good working relationship with the vendors and company representatives involved in the selection process for new technology.
D.  Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.

Conduct research relevant to your case study using the Internet, Concorde Library, clinical site library, and any other appropriate sources. Review a variety of sources including professional journals, reputable websites, research papers, and books.
Write a 6-page APA formatted paper in which you address the following:
Cover the entire medical case of a patient from their entrance to the hospital to the present time.
Include the assessments, treatment decisions, and outcomes of those treatments.
Include the explanation, rationale and outcomes of patient assessment, disease/trauma pathology, ventilator strategy and management, respiratory therapeutics, patient education, pulmonary rehabilitation and experimental therapies.
Include the long-term prognosis of the patient.
NOTE: These are not copies of the patient’s chart. This should be written in an explanatory essay style.
Support your paper with a minimum of 7 peer-reviewed and/or scholarly resources, excluding the course textbooks.
Summarize your major findings in an organized, 1-page outline.
Include a cover page with the title of your report, your first and last name, and the date it is submitted.

6-8 minutes
Organize this speech using one of the problem/solution patterns of organization
Problem/solution (2 main points)
Problem/cause/solution (3 main points)
Monroe’s Motivated Sequence (Problem/Solution/Action – 2 or 3 main points)
Provide sufficient evidence to prove the existence/relevance of the problem and to help support the solution
Evidence should be from unbiased, credible sources
Orally cite your sources often throughout (minimum of 6 separate sources)
Discuss possible objections to your stance
Balance ethos, pathos, and logos
Work to build credibility throughout with evidence, citing sources, and through your delivery
Use appropriate levels of emotional appeal
Avoid logical fallacies
Include an introduction covering the 5 objectives of intros
Attention getter
Reveal topic
Establish credibility
Relate topic to audience
Preview main points
Include a conclusion covering the 3 objectives of conclusions
Signal the end
Briefly restate the problem and solution
End with impact/call to action
Include clear transitions from section-to-section and between main points
Use signposts, internal previews, and summaries
Submit a formal, full-sentence outline (use the outline template found in the Files section of Canvas)
APA format!
12 pt. Font
Double spaced
Cover page
Running headers
A minimum of 6 sources should be cited in APA format in-text and in a reference page attached to your outline
At least 1 of your sources must be scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles
A multimedia visual aid (Prezi, Google Docs) is required
At least 2 different types of visual aids should be included
Please make sure to follow the guidelines for preparing and presenting professional multimedia presentations

Review should contain four main parts, so keep these in mind as you are formulating your review.
Purpose:
What was the aim of the book?
What are the authors trying to accomplish?
What is their argument?
Audience:
Who was this book written for?
Who is the author trying to convince?
Strategy/Approach:
How does the book attempt to achieve its aim?
Evaluation:
Is the book successful in accomplishing its aim?
What strategies and evidence did you see in the book?
To what extent are you convinced by the book?
To whom (if anyone) would you recommend this book?
Submission Requirements:
Formatting: 
4 COMPLETE pages in length, not including title and reference page
Double spaced
Times New Roman Font
Size 12 font
APA Format: 
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_style_introduction.htmlLinks to an external site.
Review Sections:
Title Page
Introduction
Thesis
Body
Conclusion
Reference Page
I would recommend structuring your review by mirroring the structure of the book itself. You can discuss topics or major points in the same order as the author, providing an evaluation that moves from section to section. This structure can help you emphasize the thoroughness of your review.
Assignment Point Value: 250 points
Grading Rubric:
Formatting: 50 points
APA format, paper length, grammar (use grammerly.com), spacing, font style and size – all are worth 10 points each
< 20% Turnitin similarity score Introduction: 25 points Introduce the title, author, and topic of the book State the purpose of the book (include any major findings) State your thesis (or the purpose of your review) Thesis: 15 points You are asked to evaluate the book’s contribution to health care management and to your pathway in leadership. This should serve as the backbone of your thesis. Body: 135 points Summarize the major points of the author's argument Discuss the author’s engagement with larger themes Identify key strengths and weaknesses Evaluate the author’s contribution to leadership and how you can use the main points in your administrative career Conclusion: 25 points What have you learned from reviewing the book? What is your overall assessment of the book's importance? Who might benefit most from reading it?

Research Paper:   Research each of the selected f-tags , utilizing secondary sources and at least one (1) peer reviewed journal research study (per each F-tag) and provide an in-depth analysis on why the f-tag should be incorporated into the CMS regulations.  
what’s in bold are my F TAGS that need to be explained why they should be in the CMS regulations
My outline
Introduction
Research question: How does behavioral health, Treatment/service for dementia and provision of medically related social services effect residents in a nursing home. How does improving occur in a nursing home?
Sub 1: Behavioral health services 
Access to behavioral health professionals
Important for patients to have not only the proper health professional but the right health professional for that patient
Proper training for staff
Health professionals need to be taught on patient’s behaviors, certain protocols, treatments, etc.
Evaluation of mental health needs
Sub 2:Treatment /service for dementia
Personal-centered care
Patient-to-patient care, not everyone is treated the same
Non-pharmaceutical approaches
Attempting different types of therapy over drugs to treat patients
Involvement of family in treatment
Involving family can help with treatment by making patient feel more comfortable
End-of-life planning
Providing patient with comfort as they prepare to transition
Sub 3: Provision of medically related social services
Community integration programs
Programs to help patients interact with normal, everyday life
Financial assistance
Providing patients with needed resources in order to benefit future quality of life
Transportation services
It may be difficult for a patient to receive care because of location/mobility, providing transportation to and from healthcare facilities would assist the patient greatly
Conclusion

A.  Discuss a systems-level safety concern in a healthcare setting by applying the situation, background, assessment, recommendation (SBAR) format by doing the following: 
1.  Describe a healthcare-related situation (S) prompting a systems-level patient safety concern that has the potential to impact multiple patients.
2.   Analyze background (B) information about the concern by doing the following:
a.  Describe the data that support or would support the need for change.
b.  Explain how one or more national patient safety standards apply to this situation.
3.   Assess (A) the impact of the safety concern on the patient(s), staff, and the organization as situated in the identified healthcare setting.
a.  Explain how the safety concern affects value for the patient(s) and the healthcare setting.
4.   Recommend (R) an evidence-based practice change that addresses the safety concern.
a.  Discuss how this recommendation aligns with the principles of a high-reliability organization.
b.  Describe two potential barriers to the recommended practice change.
c.  Identify two potential interventions to minimize the barriers from part A4b to the recommended practice change.
d.  Discuss the significance of shared decision-making among the healthcare setting’s relevant stakeholders in implementing this recommendation.
e.  Describe an outcome measure that could be used to evaluate the results of the recommendation.
f.   Describe the care delivery model currently being used in the healthcare setting.
i.  Explain how the current care delivery model in the healthcare setting identified in part A4f would be impacted by the recommended change in part A4.
B.  Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
C.  Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.COMPETENCIES
738.4.1 : Compare Healthcare Delivery Models
The learner compares healthcare delivery models to facilitate value-based care, shared decision-making, and equitable patient-centered care.
738.4.2 : Describe Continuous Improvement Strategies
The learner describes evidence-based continuous improvement strategies that improve patient care.
738.4.3 : Compare Safety Standards
The learner compares current practice with patient safety standards to promote optimal patient outcomes.
738.4.4 : Examine Systems Redesign
The learner examines systems design in a high-reliability organization.
INTRODUCTION
Patient safety is an integral part of value-based healthcare. Ensuring patient safety can lead to faster recovery times, which, in turn, leads to lower costs of care. When combined, these factors result in improved patient satisfaction. Ensuring patient safety requires professional nurses to be proactive in identifying potential safety concerns and proposing evidence-based solutions to mitigate those concerns across the healthcare continuum.
Your goal for this task is to clearly and concisely propose a recommendation that addresses an identified systems-level safety issue that affects patients within a healthcare setting, such as your practice or a colleague’s practice, using convincing evidence to promote the necessity for change.
REQUIREMENTS
Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. The similarity report that is provided when you submit your task can be used as a guide.
You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.
Tasks may not be submitted as cloud links, such as links to Google Docs, Google Slides, OneDrive, etc., unless specified in the task requirements. All other submissions must be file types that are uploaded and submitted as attachments (e.g., .docx, .pdf, .ppt).
A.  Discuss a systems-level safety concern in a healthcare setting by applying the situation, background, assessment, recommendation (SBAR) format by doing the following: 
1.  Describe a healthcare-related situation (S) prompting a systems-level patient safety concern that has the potential to impact multiple patients.
2.   Analyze background (B) information about the concern by doing the following:
a.  Describe the data that support or would support the need for change.
b.  Explain how one or more national patient safety standards apply to this situation.
3.   Assess (A) the impact of the safety concern on the patient(s), staff, and the organization as situated in the identified healthcare setting.
a.  Explain how the safety concern affects value for the patient(s) and the healthcare setting.
4.   Recommend (R) an evidence-based practice change that addresses the safety concern.
a.  Discuss how this recommendation aligns with the principles of a high-reliability organization.
b.  Describe two potential barriers to the recommended practice change.
c.  Identify two potential interventions to minimize the barriers from part A4b to the recommended practice change.
d.  Discuss the significance of shared decision-making among the healthcare setting’s relevant stakeholders in implementing this recommendation.
e.  Describe an outcome measure that could be used to evaluate the results of the recommendation.
f.   Describe the care delivery model currently being used in the healthcare setting.
i.  Explain how the current care delivery model in the healthcare setting identified in part A4f would be impacted by the recommended change in part A4.
B.  Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
C.  Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission.
File Restrictions
File name may contain only letters, numbers, spaces, and these symbols: ! – _ . * ‘ ( )
File size limit: 200 MB
File types allowed: doc, docx, rtf, xls, xlsx, ppt, pptx, odt, pdf, csv, txt, qt, mov, mpg, avi, mp3, wav, mp4, wma, flv, asf, mpeg, wmv, m4v, svg, tif, tiff, jpeg, jpg, gif, png, zip, rar, tar, 7z
RUBRIC
A1:SAFETY CONCERN
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not describe a healthcare-related situation.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission describes a healthcare-related situation, but the situation would not be regarded as a plausible systems-level patient safety concern or does not have the potential to impact multiple patients given current healthcare practices.
COMPETENT
The submission describes a healthcare-related situation that could be regarded as a plausible systems-level patient safety concern that has the potential to impact multiple patients given current healthcare practices.
A2A:DATA
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not describe any data.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission describes data, but the description is general in nature, or the described data do not demonstrate the need for change to address the situation in part A1.
COMPETENT
The submission describes specific data that demonstrate the need for change to address the situation in part A1.
A2B:NATIONAL SAFETY STANDARD(S)
NOT EVIDENT
An explanation referencing at least 1 national patient safety standard is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The explanation references at least 1 national patient safety standard but does not correctly address how each referenced standard applies to the situation described in part A1.
COMPETENT
The explanation references at least 1 national patient safety standard and correctly addresses how each referenced standard applies to the situation described in part A1.
A3:IMPACT
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not discuss the impact of the safety concern from part A1.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission does not logically discuss the impact of the safety concern described in part A1 as it specifically relates to the patient(s), staff, or healthcare setting.
COMPETENT
The submission logically discusses the impact of the safety concern described in part A1 as it specifically relates to the patient(s), staff, and healthcare setting.
A3A:VALUE
NOT EVIDENT
An explanation of how the safety concern from part A1 affects value for the patient(s) and the healthcare setting is not provided.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission explains how the safety concern from part A1 affects value for the patient(s) and the healthcare setting, but the explanation is illogical or contains inaccuracies.
COMPETENT
The submission logically and accurately explains how the safety concern from part A1 affects value for the patient(s) and the healthcare setting.
A4:EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE CHANGE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not provide a recommendation for a practice change.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission provides a recommendation for a practice change, but the recommendation is not evidence-based. Or it is irrelevant to the safety concern described in part A1 or would not logically address the concern.
COMPETENT
The submission provides a recommendation for an evidence-based practice change that is relevant to the safety concern described in part A1 and would logically address the concern.
A4A:HIGH-RELIABILITY ORGANIZATION
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not discuss how the recommendation in part A4 aligns with the principles of any organization.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission discusses how the recommendation in part A4 aligns with the principles of an organization, but the alignment discussed is not specific to a high-reliability organization.
COMPETENT
The submission accurately discusses how the recommendation in part A4 aligns with the principles of a high-reliability organization.
A4B:POTENTIAL BARRIERS
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not describe any potential barriers to the recommended practice change.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission describes only 1 potential barrier to the recommended practice change. Or the description is irrelevant to the safety concern in part A1.
COMPETENT
The submission describes 2 potential barriers to the recommended practice change that are relevant to the safety concern in part A1.
A4C:POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not identify any potential interventions to minimize the barriers from part A4b to the recommended practice change.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies only 1 potential intervention that could minimize the barriers from part A4b to the recommended practice change. Or 1 or both interventions are not relevant to the recommended practice change.
COMPETENT
The submission identifies 2 potential interventions that could minimize the barriers from part A4b to the recommended practice change.
A4D:SHARED DECISION-MAKING
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not discuss the significance of shared decision-making among the healthcare setting’s stakeholders in implementing the recommendation in part A4.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission does not logically discuss the significance of shared decision-making among the healthcare setting’s relevant stakeholders in implementing the proposed recommendation in part A4. Or the discussion is general in nature or does not specifically relate to the implementation of the proposed recommendation in part A4.
COMPETENT
The submission logically discusses the significance of shared decision-making among the healthcare setting’s relevant stakeholders, and the discussion specifically relates to the implementation of the proposed recommendation in part A4.
A4E:OUTCOME MEASURE
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not describe any outcome measures that could be used to evaluate the results of the recommendation in part A4.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission describes an outcome measure, but it could not be used to evaluate the results of the proposed recommendation in part A4. Or the outcome measure is irrelevant to the proposed recommendation in part A4.
COMPETENT
The submission describes a relevant outcome measure that could be used to evaluate the results of the proposed recommendation in part A4.
A4F:CARE DELIVERY MODEL
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not describe the care delivery model currently being used in the healthcare setting.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission identifies a care delivery model currently being used in the healthcare setting but does not describe the care delivery model. Or the description does not include sufficient detail.
COMPETENT
The submission thoroughly describes the care delivery model currently being used in the healthcare setting.
A4FI:IMPACT ON CARE DELIVERY MODEL
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not explain how the current care delivery model in the healthcare setting would be impacted by the change in part A4.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission explains how the care delivery model in the healthcare setting would be impacted, but it does not align with the care model identified in part A4f, or it does not align with the recommended change in part A4, or the explanation is not logical.
COMPETENT
The submission logically explains how the current care delivery model in the healthcare setting identified in part A4f would be impacted by the recommended change in part A4.
B:SOURCES
NOT EVIDENT
The submission does not include both in-text citations and a reference list for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list; however, the citations or reference list is incomplete or inaccurate.
COMPETENT
The submission includes in-text citations for sources that are properly quoted, paraphrased, or summarized and a reference list that accurately identifies the author, date, title, and source location as available.
C:PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION
NOT EVIDENT
Content is unstructured, is disjointed, or contains pervasive errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar. Vocabulary or tone is unprofessional or distracts from the topic.
APPROACHING COMPETENCE
Content is poorly organized, is difficult to follow, or contains errors in mechanics, usage, or grammar that cause confusion. Terminology is misused or ineffective.
COMPETENT
Content reflects attention to detail, is organized, and focuses on the main ideas as prescribed in the task or chosen by the candidate. Terminology is pertinent, is used correctly, and effectively conveys the intended meaning. Mechanics, usage, and grammar promote accurate interpretation and understanding.