The Organizational Self-Assessment Tool (Word) (Links to an external site.) helps organizations understand the range and breadth of elements of patient- and family-centered care and can be used to assess where an organization is compared to the leading edge of practice. Use the self-assessment tool to assess how your organization is performing in relation to specific components of patient- and family-centered care or as a basis for conversations about patient-centeredness in the organization.
Directions
Think about your current organization and practice setting as you complete the organizational self-assessment.
Review each question and indicate a rating of 1 to 5 for each (with 1 being low and 5 being high) or “Do not know.”
Include your self-assessment as an appendix at the end of your paper.
Write a paper that answers the following questions based on your self-assessment:
• What does being a “5” on the questions mean to you (or the organization)?
• How would your organization know it is at a “5”?
• What would it take for your organization to rate itself at a “5” consistently?
For questions answered with “Do not know,” address the following questions in your paper:
• Why don’t organizations know this?
• How can they find out?
• Why is it important to find out?
Summarize your findings and discuss the next steps:
• What is most important for your organization to address?
• How can you and/or your organization gain more patient and family input on what to focus on next?
Your paper should be no more than five pages long, be double-spaced, use APA format, and include at least two references. Remember to include the completed self-assessment as an appendix to your paper.
Rubric
Assignment 5.1 Organizational Self-Assessment Tool Rubric
Assignment 5.1 Organizational Self-Assessment Tool Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction 15 pts
Consistent with Doctoral/Masters level performance
An effective introduction captures reader interest. The paper contains a thesis that clearly identifies the proposed organizational structure. There is consistent focus throughout the paper solely on supporting the thesis, with no irrelevant details. The thesis is clearly developed both within paragraphs and from paragraph to paragraph, to establish coherence and cohesion. 7.5 pts
Needs Improvement
The introduction, while not entirely engaging, sets up the purpose and or tone of the paper. The paper contains a thesis (although it may not solidly establish the proposed organizational structure). Focus is mostly maintained throughout the essay with perhaps a few inclusions of irrelevant details. Coherence is mostly maintained within paragraphs, and cohesion is evident even though some transitions are unclear or missing. 3.75 pts
Unsatisfactory
An ineffective introduction either does not seek to engage the reader or sets the paper off on the wrong footing by introducing confusion. A thesis is either lacking or unclear; the paper is marked by a distinct lack of focus, causing the reader confusion and/or frustration. The paper does not clearly identify the proposed organizational structure. Little coherence within paragraphs or absence of transitions between paragraphs lead to poor development of the thesis. Missing thesis or very poor organization would result in 0 points.
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCompleted Self Assessment Inclusion 25 pts
The paper includes the self-assessment as an appendix at the end of the paper. 12.5 pts
The paper includes the self-assessment as an appendix at the end of the paper. 6.5 pts
The paper includes the self-assessment as an appendix at the end of the paper. No appendix would result in 0 points.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis of questions rated as “5” 25 pts
Contains a topic sentence and relevant, quality concrete details that give the reader important information that meaningfully discusses the questions the author rated as “5” on the self-assessment. The paper explains how the organization would know it is at a “5” with specific examples that logically explain full understanding of the scoring and how it is demonstrated in practice. There is thoughtful reflection pertaining to what it would take for the organization to rate itself at a “5” consistently, and this is expressed in a clear, logical sequence that incorporates complexities and tensions and/or underlying values and assumptions. 12.5 pts
Topic sentence is stated. Supporting details are relevant but reveal a general, fundamental understanding of the course material. Author lists the questions rated as “5” on the self-assessment, but only meets the minimum requirements in this area. The paper gives a superficial or basic explanation of how the organization would know it is at a “5” with some examples that logically explain a general understanding of the scoring and how it is demonstrated in practice. The author reflects to some extent about what it would take for the organization to rate itself at a “5” consistently, and this is expressed in a mostly logical sequence that incorporates various issues and perspective but may be tangentially related or the analysis is simplistic or somewhat unclear. 6.25 pts
Topic sentence is weak or missing entirely. The author attempts to identify the questions rated as “5” but fails to do so in an organized and logical manner. Supporting details and information are typically unclear or not related to the topic or there are no concrete details presented. There is a seemingly random collection of information or the paper presents concepts in isolation and does not demonstrate a logical sequencing of ideas. This would result in 0 to 1 point.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis of questions answered as “I don’t know” 50 pts
Contains a topic sentence and relevant, quality concrete details that give the reader important information that meaningfully discusses the questions the author rated as “I don’t know” on the self-assessment. The paper explains why the organization doesn’t know, explains fully how the information could be found out, and provides 2–3 specific rationales that logically explain full understanding of why it would be important to find out. 25 pts
Topic sentence is stated. Supporting details are relevant but reveal a general, fundamental understanding of the course material. Author lists the questions rated as “I don’t know” on the self-assessment, but only meets the minimum requirements in this area. The paper gives a superficial or basic explanation of why the organization doesn’t know, briefly explains how the information could be found out, and provides 1–2 rationales that logically explain a general understanding of why it would be important to find out. 12.5 pts
Topic sentence is weak or missing entirely. The author attempts to identify the questions rated as “I don’t know” but fails to do so in an organized and logical manner. Supporting details and information are typically unclear or not related to the topic or there are no concrete rationales presented. There is a seemingly random collection of information or the paper presents concepts in isolation and does not demonstrate a logical sequencing of ideas. This would result in 0 to 1 point.
50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary and Application of Concepts to Practice 50 pts
The student identifies the most important thing for the organization to address based on the analysis of the self-assessment response. The paper identifies 3–4 specific ways that the student and/or the organization can gain more patient/family input on what to focus on next. 25 pts
The student identifies some important thing for the organization to address based on the analysis of the self-assessment response. It is not clear what is most important. The paper identifies 1–2 general ways that the student and/or the organization can gain more patient/family input on what to focus on next. 12.5 pts
The student identifies things that should be addressed by the organization based on the analysis of the self-assessment responses. It is not clear what, if any, of these things are important or what is most important. The paper only identifies 0–1 ways that the student and/or the organization can gain more patient/family input on what to focus on next. The author’s intentions are difficult to discern or the paper fails to respond intelligibly to the prompts within the instructions. This would result in 0–1 point.
50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusions 10 pts
The conclusion subtly returns to the thesis from the introduction paragraph. The paper has a sense of completeness. The student connects the paper to the external world. 5 pts
The conclusion is a summary that repeats previously stated information; or new information is introduced that does not fit. 2.5 pts
The paper simply ends without any effort made to add any new insight or connect the content of the paper to the external world; Or there is no conclusion whatsoever, which would result in 0 points.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting 25 pts
Paper is coherently organized and the logic is easy to follow. There are no spelling or grammatical errors and terminology is clearly defined. Writing is clear and concise and persuasive. Paper does not exceed 5 pages (not including cover page or reference page). Includes 2 or more sources cited within the paper. Follows APA formatting. 12.5 pts
Paper is generally well organized and mostly easy to follow. There are only a few minor spelling or grammatical errors, or terms are not clearly defined. Writing is mostly clear but may lack conciseness. Paper exceeds 5 pages but is fewer than 8 pages in length (not including cover page or reference page). 1–2 sources are cited within the paper. Mostly observes APA formatting. 6.25 pts
Paper is poorly organized and difficult to read – does not flow logically from one part to another. There are several spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms may not be defined or are poorly defined. Writing lacks clarity and conciseness. Paper is either insufficient in length to address the required components of the paper or the paper is exceeds 9 or more pages (not including cover page or reference page). No sources are cited within the paper. Multiple APA formatting errors exist. Extremely insufficient length, numerous writing mechanic errors, lack of clarity, or similar may result in 0 to 1 point.
25 pts
Total Points: 200
For this short paper activity, you will learn about the three delays model, which explains…
Topic : Hospital adult medical surgical collaboration area a. Current Menu Analysis (5 points/5%) Analyze…
As a sales manager, you will use statistical methods to support actionable business decisions for Pastas R Us,…
Read the business intelligence articles: Getting to Know the World of Business Intelligence Business intelligence…
The behaviors of a population can put it at risk for specific health conditions. Studies…