Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
HLT-308V HLT-308V-O501 Educational Program on Risk Management Part Two - Slide Presentation 200.0
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%
Introduction 10.0% Introduction slides are not included. Introduction slides are present, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. Introduction slides provide minimal detail or support. Introduction slides provide appropriate support as to why greater attention to this risk management strategy is needed. Introduction slides are informative and thorough in explaining why increased attention to the proposed risk management strategy is needed. Specific examples are provided where appropriate.
Rationale 10.0% Rationale slides are not included. Rationale slides are present, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. Rationale slides provide minimal detail or support. Rationale slides provide appropriate support as to how the proposed risk management strategy is lacking in the selected plan and how its implementation will better meet compliance standards. Rationale slides are informative and thorough in explaining why the proposed risk management strategy is lacking in the selected plan. Specific examples are provided as to how its implementation will better meet compliance standards.
Support 10.0% Support data slides are not included. Support data slides are present, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. Support data slides provide minimal detail or support. Support data slides provide an appropriate explanation of how the data indicate a need for the proposed risk management initiative. Support data slides are informative and thorough in showing how the data indicate a need for the proposed risk management initiative. Specific examples are provided where appropriate.
Implementation 10.0% Implementation slides are not included. Implementation slides are present, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. Implementation slides provide minimal detail or support. Implementation slides provide appropriate support for how the risk management initiative will be incorporated into the selected health care organization. Implementation slides are informative and thorough in explaining the specific actionable steps by which the selected health care organization can implement the proposed risk management initiative.
Challenges 10.0% Challenges slides are not included. Challenges slides are present, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. Challenges slides provide minimal detail or support. Challenges slides provide appropriate rationale for potential obstacles to the risk management implementation and propose possible solutions. Challenges slides are informative and thorough in explaining potential obstacles to the risk management implementation. Slides also provide specific examples of solutions for navigating or preempting predicted obstacles.
Evaluation Strategy 10.0% Evaluation strategy slides are not included. Evaluation strategy slides are present, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. Evaluation strategy slides provide minimal detail or support. Evaluation strategy slides provide an appropriate explanation of how the evaluation plan will assess alignment with the overall goals of the risk management program. Evaluation strategy slides are informative and thorough in providing specific examples of how the evaluation plan will assess alignment with the short-term, long-term, and end goals of the risk management program.
Opportunities 10.0% Opportunities slides are not included. Opportunities slides are present, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. Opportunities slides provide minimal detail or support. Opportunities slides provide an appropriate explanation of additional risk management improvements along with support for the recommended changes. Opportunities slides are informative and thorough in providing additional risk management improvements along with detailed support for the recommended changes.
Incorporation of Instructor Feedback From Previous Assignment 5.0% Incorporation of instructor feedback from previous assignment is not present. Incorporation of instructor feedback from previous assignment is insufficiently present. Incorporation of instructor feedback from previous assignment is perfunctory. Incorporation of instructor feedback from previous assignment is adequate. Incorporation of instructor feedback from previous assignment is comprehensive.
Presentation of Content 5.0% The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear. The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information. The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization or in their relationships to each other. The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive information from reliable sources. The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.
Layout 5.0% The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident. The layout shows some structure but appears cluttered and busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text. The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability. The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text. The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance the readability of the text.
Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.) 5.0% Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately. Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately. Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part. The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly. The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. Writer is clearly in control of standard, written, academic English.
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. Few outside sources were used to support the assignment. Limited research is apparent. The information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Research and citations are adequate regarding source, number, and rigor of resources selected. Sources are standard in relevance, quality of outside sources, or timeliness. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Research and citations are timely and relevant, and address all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Research and citations are supportive of the rationale presented. Sources are distinctive and addresses all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria.
Total Weightage 100%

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
HLT-308V HLT-308V-O501 Reflective Analysis: Risk Management and the Role of Managed Care 70.0
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%
Administrative Role of a Health Care Organization in Ensuring Compliance With Managed Care Organization (MCO) Risk Management Standards 25.0% An assessment of the administrative role of a health care organization in ensuring compliance with MCO risk management standards is not included. An assessment of the administrative role of a health care organization in ensuring compliance with MCO risk management standards is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. An assessment of the administrative role of a health care organization in ensuring compliance with MCO risk management standards is present, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. An assessment of the administrative role of a health care organization in ensuring compliance with MCO risk management standards is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. An assessment of the administrative role of a health care organization in ensuring compliance with MCO risk management standards is comprehensive. The submission further incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
Value of MCO Regulatory Statutes to a Health Care Organization 25.0% An explanation of the value MCO regulatory statutes provide to a health care organization is not included. An explanation of the value MCO regulatory statutes provide to a health care organization is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. An explanation of the value MCO regulatory statutes provide to a health care organization is present, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. An explanation of the value MCO regulatory statutes provide to a health care organization is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. An explanation of the value MCO regulatory statutes provide to a health care organization is present and comprehensive. The submission further incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully and provides specific examples with relevance. Level of detail is appropriate.
MCO Responsibilities Relative to ACA and CMS Focus on Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Laws 25.0% A description of the MCO responsibilities relative to the ACA and CMS focus on fraud, waste, and abuse laws is not included. A description of the MCO responsibilities relative to the ACA and CMS focus on fraud, waste, and abuse laws is partially incorporated, but the information provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise deficient. A description of the MCO responsibilities relative to the ACA and CMS focus on fraud, waste, and abuse laws is present, but minimal detail or support is provided for one or more components. A description of the MCO responsibilities relative to the ACA and CMS focus on fraud, waste, and abuse laws is incorporated in full. The submission encompasses essential details and provides appropriate support. A description of the MCO responsibilities relative to the ACA and CMS focus on fraud, waste, and abuse laws is comprehensive. The submission further incorporates analysis of supporting evidence insightfully 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%
Previous Next

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.

Efficiently complete your homework and academic assignments by getting help from the experts at homeworkarchive.com