Fluent Essays

The purpose of this assignment is to analyze a health care risk management program. Conduct research on approaches to risk management processes, policies, and concerns in your current or anticipated professional arena to find an example of a risk management plan. Look for a plan with sufficient content to be able to complete this assignment successfully. In a 1,000‐1,250-word, provide an analysis of the risk management plan that includes the following: Summary of the type of risk management plan you selected (new employee, specific audience, community‐focused, etc.) and your rationale for selecting that example. Describe the health care organization to which the plan applies and the role risk management plays in that setting. Description of the standard administrative steps and processes in a typical health care organization's risk management program compared to the administrative steps and processes you identify in your selected example plan. (Note: For standard risk management policies and procedures, look up the MIPPA-approved accrediting body that regulates the risk management standards in your chosen health care sector, and consider federal, state, and local statutes as well.) Analysis of the key agencies and organizations that regulate the administration of safe health care in your area of concentration and an evaluation of the roles each one plays in the risk management oversight process. Evaluation of your selected risk management plan's compliance with the standards of its corresponding MIPPA-approved accrediting body relevant to privacy, health care worker safety, and patient safety. Proposed recommendations or changes you would implement in your risk management program example to enhance, improve, or secure the aforementioned compliance standards. In addition to your textbook, you are required to support your analysis with a minimum of three peer‐reviewed references. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. Benchmark Information This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competency: BS Health Sciences 3.2 Discuss compliance with risk management protocol. Rubic_Print_Format Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points HLT-308V HLT-308V-O500 Benchmark - Risk Management Program Analysis - Part One 150.0 Criteria Percentage 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) 2: Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) 3: Satisfactory (75.00%) 4: Good (85.00%) 5: Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned % Scaling 100.0% Summary Description of the Type of Risk Management Plan Selected With Rationale 15.0% A summary description of the type of risk management plan selected, with rationale, is not included. A summary description of the type of risk management plan selected, with rationale, is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. A summary description of the type of risk management plan selected, with rationale, is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. A summary description of the type of risk management plan selected, with rationale, is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. A summary description of the type of risk management plan selected with rationale is comprehensive. The submission incorporates specific examples with relevance and provides appropriate details. Comparison of Standard Risk Management Program Administrative Steps and Processes With the Administrative Steps and Processes in the Example 15.0% A comparison of standard risk management program administrative steps and processes with the administrative steps and processes in the example is not included. A comparison of standard risk management program administrative steps and processes with the administrative steps and processes in the example is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. A comparison of standard risk management program administrative steps and processes with the administrative steps and processes in the example is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. A comparison of standard risk management program administrative steps and processes with the administrative steps and processes in the example is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. A comparison of standard risk management program administrative steps and processes with the administrative steps and processes in the example is comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. Analysis of Key Regulatory Agencies and Organizations Inclusive of Their Roles in the Risk Management Oversight Process 15.0% An analysis of key regulatory agencies and organizations inclusive of their roles in the risk management oversight process is not included. An analysis of key regulatory agencies and organizations inclusive of their roles in the risk management oversight process is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. An analysis of key regulatory agencies and organizations inclusive of their roles in the risk management oversight process is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. An analysis of key regulatory agencies and organizations inclusive of their roles in the risk management oversight process is present and incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. An analysis of key regulatory agencies and organizations inclusive of their roles in the risk management oversight process is present and comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. Evaluation of the Example Risk Management Plan Compliance With MIPPA-Approved Accrediting Body Standards (C3.2) 15.0% An evaluation of the example risk management plan compliance with the MIPPA-approved accrediting body standards is not included. An evaluation of the example risk management plan compliance with the MIPPA-approved accrediting body standards is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. An evaluation of the example risk management plan compliance with the MIPPA-approved accrediting body standards is incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. An evaluation of the example risk management plan compliance with the MIPPA-approved accrediting body standards is present and incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. An evaluation of the example risk management plan compliance with the MIPPA-approved accrediting body standards is present and comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. Proposed Recommendations to the Risk Management Program Example to Enhance, Improve, or Secure Compliance Standards 15.0% Proposed recommendations to the risk management program example to enhance, improve, or secure compliance standards are not included. Proposed recommendations to the risk management program example to enhance, improve, or secure compliance standards are partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient Proposed recommendations to the risk management program example to enhance, improve, or secure compliance standards are incorporated, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. Proposed recommendations to the risk management program example to enhance, improve, or secure compliance standards are present and incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. Proposed recommendations to the risk management program example to enhance, improve, or secure compliance standards are present and comprehensive. The submission incorporates analysis of supporting evidence and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate. Thesis Development and Purpose 5.0% Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. Argument Logic and Construction 5.0% Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0% Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct. Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Total Weightage 100%