CNA423 Introduction to Quality Health Services: Assessment task 2 Research Report 45% 2,000 words
Report Section Performance Indicators
HD DN CR PP NN
In your research report you
wrote an:
In your research report you
wrote an::
In your research report you
wrote an::
In your research report you
wrote an::
In your research report you
wrote an::
Outline context,
background and
purpose.
Identify problem
and/or processes to be
improved
Excellent summary of
the context, background
and problem. Excellent
statement of the
research report’s
purpose.
Overview of the context,
background and
problem. Clear
statement of the
research report’s
purpose.
Description of
background and
problem, with a
statement of the
research report’s
purpose.
The required material is
present and meets the
stated requirements for
the research report.
The context,
background and
problem identification
are absent or
superficially addressed.
Stakeholders’ needs
and PEST influences
Excellent summary of
stakeholders’ needs
and excellent PEST
analysis.
Good summary of
stakeholders’ needs
and good PEST
analysis.
Solid summary of
stakeholders’ needs
and PEST analysis.
Summary of
stakeholders’ needs
and PEST analysis
present but lack depth.
Summary of
stakeholders’ needs
and PEST analysis are
superficial or not
appropriate for the
report topic.
Define and quantify a
gap between current
practice and one or
two criteria selected
from one NSQHS
standard
Excellent definition and
quantification of gap(s).
Two or more
perspectives (macro,
meso, micro) evident.
Qualitative and
quantitative measures
included with
traceability and
justification of claims.
Good definition and
quantification of gap(s).
Two or more
perspectives (macro,
meso, micro) evident.
Qualitative and
quantitative measures
included.
Clear definition and
quantification of gap(s).
Two or more
perspectives (macro,
meso, micro) evident.
Measures clearly
evident.
Adequate definition and
quantification of a gap.
One or more
perspectives (macro,
meso, micro) evident.
Definition and
quantification of gap
absent or poorly
developed. Use of one
or more perspectives
(macro, meso, micro)
not evident.
Identify opportunities
to reduce the gap
between current
performance and the
standard in one
location
Excellent identification
of opportunities to
reduce gap(s) between
current performance
and standard. Ranking
of opportunities with
consideration of
benefits, difficulty,
Good identification of
opportunities to reduce
gap(s) between current
performance and
standard. Clear ranking
based on benefits and
difficulty of
implementation.
Clear identification of
opportunities to reduce
gap(s) between current
performance and
standard with some
discussion ranking
based on difficulty of
implementation.
Adequate identification
of opportunities to
reduce gap(s) between
current performance
and standard.
Inadequate
identification of
opportunities to reduce
gap(s) between current
performance and
standard.
timing and costs.
Discussion of
anticipated benefits of
opportunities
identified and
potential difficulties
of implementation
Excellent discussion of
anticipated benefits of
opportunities identified
and potential difficulties
of implementation
Good discussion of
anticipated benefits of
opportunities identified
and potential difficulties
of implementation
Clear discussion of
anticipated benefits of
opportunities identified
and potential difficulties
of implementation
Adequate discussion of
anticipated benefits of
opportunities identified
and potential difficulties
of implementation
Inadequate discussion
of anticipated benefits
of opportunities
identified and potential
difficulties of
implementation
Recommended next
step(s) based on the
research evidence
Excellent
recommendations for
next step(s), strongly
linked to research
evidence.
Good recommendations
for next step(s), clearly
linked to research
evidence.
Sound
recommendations for
next step(s), with some
links to research
evidence
Recommendations for
next step(s), with some
links to research
evidence
Recommendations for
next step(s) are absent,
or have no links to
research evidence
Presentation and
structure of research
report
Beautiful writing style
with careful attention
given to formatting,
spelling and grammar.
Excellent coverage of
references which have
been correctly cited.
Correct report writing
conventions used.
Nicely written
submission with
attention given to
spelling and grammar.
Most of the submission
has been correctly
referenced and a good
amount of external
sources have been
used. Mostly correct
report writing
conventions used.
Writing style is fine but
more attention needed
to ensure clarity of
expression. A good
start to referencing but
more attention needed
to style and amount
referenced. Report
writing convention used
is good but needs more
attention to detail.
Difficulty in following
logic of argument.
Needs further work in
articulating argument.
Referencing is of
concern. Report writing
conventions are not
appropriately followed.
The writing style is
confusing and little
attention has been
given to presentation
including spelling and
grammar. Referencing
is of major concern.
Report writing
conventions are not
followed.
