Topic Assignment—CPI paper

Topic: Assignment—CPI paper

Order Description

Dear writer,
Please see the attachments for the assignment and the details for it , if you have any question let me know.
Abdullah

Kind regards

Assignment—CPI paper

Students will be provided with:
• Resources relating to commonly used CPI tools
• a CPI template that they must type their CPI paper into
Students will be required to use the online library databases to locate eight (8) literature sources that closely relate to their clinical issue. These sources must include:
3 primary studies (Australian or international)
3 secondary sources (e.g. systematic literature review)
2 other types of literature source, for example: clinical protocol or guideline
government report, reliable web-based resource (e.g. The Heart Foundation or the ARC).

Students will be required to analyse, summarise, synthesise and critique the eight (8) literature sources, and construct a CPI report into the supplied template.
A marking rubric for this assignment will be available on FLO. Students MUST type their assignment into the supplied template. Students who do not type their assignment into the supplied temple will be awarded a mark of zero for their assignment.
CPI (Continuous Practice Improvement). It is tools are for helping to manage the improvement of health care.
• CPI is a tool for helping to manage the improvement of health care. It provides us with formal methods and tools for improving practice with a scientific underpinning for those methods (Wilson & Harrison 2002, p 460).
• CPI is the evidence based process of improving clinical practice by using CPI models and tools, clinical measurement, and evaluation in a continuous quality improvement cycle https://www.moh.govt.nz
CPI provides a framework where clinicians can undertake a comprehensive diagnostic of the causes of process failures which lead to inefficiencies and/or patient harm, and design solutions to continuously improve care and outcomes for patients.

CPI Tool.
PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act)
1- Decide on the process that needs improving.
2- Form team.
3- Write an aim or mission statement.
4- Consider appropriate measurements.
5- Collect evidence.
6- Decide on interventions.
7- Undertake a PDSA cycle.
Plan = plan the change that is to be trialed
Do = conduct a trial of the proposed change
Study =study the impact of trial
Act = implement the changes that have been shown to be effective

Key (250 words)
Barrier (250 -300 words)
CPI tool 750-800 words)
Intervention (350words)
Evaluation (250-300 words)

Qualitative or Quantitative

Clinical Practice Improvement Project Report
Student Name, FAN and ID:
Project Title:
Reducing infection in health care environment by educating health care practitioner in Australia (Improving hand hygiene among healthcare workers to reduce the risk of healthcare associated infections in Australian hospitals).

Project Aim:

Evidence that the issue / problem is worth solving:

Key Stakeholders:

CPI Tool:

Summary of proposed interventions:

Barriers to implementation and sustaining change:

Evaluation of the project:

– CPI paper Marking Rubric
PERFORMANCE STANDARD
CATEGORY & WEIGHTING

Excellent Work
Good Work
Passing Work
Unsatisfactory work

Project Aim and Evidence the issue is worth solving
20%

Aim succinct & clearly
defined. All evidence relevant & rigorous. Shows a very high level of insight & relevance to the issue.

(17-20) ? Aim well defined.
Some irrelevant information but most evidence relevant & rigorous. Shows a very good level of insight & relevance to the issue.

(13-16.5) ? Aim stated with some ambiguity. Some evidence relevant and rigorous,
Acceptable level of insight.
Quite a lot of irrelevant information is present. May be overlong/ too brief

(10-12.5) ? Aim not clearly stated
Most evidence is not relevant or rigorous.
Poor level of insight & relevance to the issue. Significant amount of irrelevant/ missing information.
(0–9.5) ?

Key Stakeholders
10% Identifies most relevant key stakeholders. Discusses clearly how they could be involved in the project.
Succinctly and expertly written. Very high level of insight into the role of stakeholders.

(9-10) ? Identifies some relevant key stakeholders and adequately discusses how they could be involved in the project.
Very well written. Good level of insight into the role of stakeholders.

(7-8.5) ?
Identifies a few relevant key stakeholders. Mentions briefly how they could be involved. Quite well written but contains some irrelevant information, or minor information is missing. Adequate level of insight into the stakeholder role.
(5-6.5) ? Contains irrelevant information, or major information is missing.
Inappropriate or no key stakeholders are identified Poor insight into the stakeholder role.

(0-4.5) ?

Clinical Practice Improvement Tool
20% Describes a relevant CPI tool Very clearly discusses how it could be used to aIDress the aim and implement the interventions. Succinctly and expertly written with no omissions of relevant information.

(17-20) ? Describes a relevant CPI tool Discusses quite clearly how the tool could be used to aIDress the aim and implement the interventions. Well written but may contain some irrelevant information, or some minor information is missing
(13-16.5) ? Describes a relevant CPI tool and adequately discusses how the tool could be used to aIDress the aim and implement the interventions.
Not succinct, contains irrelevant information, significant information is missing
(10-12.5) ? A relevant CPI tool is not identified. There is no adequate discussion of how the tool could be used to meet the aim or implement the interventions.
Contains irrelevant information or some major information is missing.
(0–9.5) ?

Summary of proposed interventions
20%

All relevant interventions are discussed very well.
Project outline is very clear and the relevance to clinical practice is very high.

(17-20) ?

Most relevant interventions discussed quite well.
Project outline is clear & relevance to clinical practice is good. Contains some irrelevant information, minor information may be missing.

(13-16.5) ?

Acceptable level of relevant interventions discussed.
Project outline mostly clear, although it may be unclear how the project would actually be implemented in clinical practice due to irrelevant/missing info

(10-12.5) ?

Some elements missing or incomplete. May contain large amounts of irrelevant information.
Project poorly described and it is unclear what the project actually entails or its relevance to clinical practice.

(0–9.5) ?

Barriers to Implementation
15% Identifies most potential barriers to implementation & clinical change. Discusses in depth how these barriers could be overcome or minimised.

(13-15) ? Identifies some potential barriers to implementation & clinical change. Discusses how these barriers could be overcome or minimised.

(10-12.5) ? Identifies a few potential barriers to implementation & clinical change. Discusses how barriers could be overcome or minimised. Minor omissions and/or some irrelevant information present
(7.5-9.5) ? Relevant barriers not identified. Poor or no discussion about how they could be overcome or minimised. Major omissions, much of the information provided is irrelevant / unrelated to the CPI goal.
(0-7) ?

Evaluation of the project
10% Succinct discussion of an excellent and achievable plan for how the intervention/s could be evaluated.

(9-10) ? Succinct discussion of a very good and mostly achievable plan for how the intervention/s could be evaluated.

(7-8.5) ? Discussion of an adequate plan for how the intervention/s could be evaluated. Some parts not relevant or achievable
Overlong / too brief, may be missing relevant information.

(5-6.5) ? Plan absent or not well described. Most or all of the plan is not relevant or achievable
Overlong / too brief, may be missing a significant amount of relevant information

(0-4.5) ?

Structure
2.5%

Excellent sentence structure and grammar. Minimal or no spelling errors. The paper flows extremely well.

(2.25-2.5) ?

Minor problems in sentence structure and grammar. Minor errors with spelling, but minimal problems with flow / readability.

(1.75-2) ?

Quite a few problems in sentence structure & grammar. Frequent spelling errors. Several problems with flow of the paper. Meaning is still clear.
(1.25-1.5) ?

No clear flow, difficult to understand the meaning. Readability is seriously limited by poor mechanics, grammar, spelling or word usage.

(0-1) ?

Referencing
2.5%
Uses the Harvard Referencing with no errors.

(2.25-2.5) ?
Uses the Harvard Referencing. There may be very minor errors in presentation of the reference list and/or in-text referencing.

(1.75-2) ?
Uses the Harvard Referencing with quite a few errors evident in presentation of the reference list and/or in-text referencing.

(1.25-1.5) ?
Harvard Referencing not used, or consistently incorrect or absent. Referencing MUST be used appropriately. Failure to do so may result in a fail grade.
(0-1) ?

term papers to buy
research papers

“Order a similar paper and get 20% discount on your first order with us Use the following coupon “GET20”

 

Posted in Uncategorized