FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay
Assessment 3 | Plan
Population Health Plan for Diabetes in 2770
Compile the concepts and elements practised so far into a population-level plan. The intended outcome is a comprehensive plan for addressing the issue of diabetes at the population level in the 2770 postcode of Western Sydney. This final activity should draw together the content of the session.
This assessment task addresses the subject learning objectives:
A: Consider the key imperatives for meeting health service objectives related to safety, quality, cost-effectiveness and jurisdictional legislative requirements within a governance context;
B: Critically appraise contemporary strategies and frameworks designed to manage quality, risk and cost within the healthcare environment;
C: Propose improvements in safety, quality and cost-effectiveness at a local healthcare organisation level by identifying issues, considering ethical implications, offering policy direction and formulation and recommending priorities for action;
D: Create a variety of ways in which complex issues can be effectively communicated for a variety of target audiences.
Course intended learning outcome(s):
2.2 Develop and contribute to research and quality improvement activities in order to maintain currency, influence healthcare practice and policy and expand the discipline’s body of knowledge and skills.
3.2 Validate the importance of integrating stakeholder partnerships in all healthcare decision making activities.
4.1 Value and choose highly effective and sensitive communication with diverse populations to ensure positive and sustainable change in healthcare practice, policy, and research.
4.2 Determine and recommend modes of communication necessary to optimise outcomes across differing audiences, purposes and contexts within healthcare practice.
Length: 2000 words (Reference list is not included in the word count).
References: APA 7th* (no minimum number or range of references).
*Please note that if you provide no referencing or incorrect/incomplete referencing you will lose marks on your assessment.
Formatting requirements: 12pt, double-spaced – no other requirements.
Scenario: Diabetes in Postcode 2770
Chronic disease is a major concern in Australia and across the world.
Population ageing, rising disability and complex and co-morbid conditions have profound impacts on people’s lives including individuals, families and communities. They are also expensive to treat and can follow a progressive, episodic pathway to increased frequency and severity, up to and including acute interventions.
Diabetes in 2770:
One of these conditions is diabetes, especially Type 2 diabetes which is growing in prevalence in many communities across Australia. General Practice data indicates rates have been rising, not falling, in recent years.
2770 has a very diverse community with a substantial Indigenous population and an immigrant demography with many cultures, languages and cultural backgrounds. It is also, generally speaking, a lower socio-economic environment although urban development is pushing west into the 2770 area, and more medium to high rise apartments are being built.
As health managers involved in clinical services, programs and event-specific projects, this is the kind of scenario you will encounter as you progress in your career. If you work in aged care, disability and related fields, these health problems will often be major factors in your client’s lives.
Use the Population Health Planning template provided to develop a draft diabetes management plan for 2770.
Remember this document is not intended as a clinical management plan but a broader plan for managing diabetes more effectively in the 2770 postcode.
Transfer your assessment 2 data into the template.
Click on the button below to download the Population Plan template.
Assessment 3: Population Health Plan for Diabetes Management in 2770
Assessment 3: Population Health Plan for Diabetes Management in 2770
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCreate a plan Produces a clear plan for managing diabetes in a vulnerable group or groups in postcode 2770 from a health management perspective
40 to >34.0 pts HD (High distinction) Succinct, clear and comprehensive description of and rationale for original ideas for the management of chronic diseases in the case study community from a health services perspective. Justifies choice of an approach based on scholarly, government and institutional literature and resources. 34 to >30.0 pts D (Distinction) Clear description and rationale for selection for original ideas for the management of chronic diseases in the case study community from a health services perspective. Correct use of evidence-based literature for justification. 30 to >26.0 pts C (Credit) Description and some rationale for selection of original ideas for the management of chronic diseases in the case study community from a health services perspective. The use of evidence-based literature is adequate to justify the selection of approaches however, further reading would enhance this section 26 to >20.0 pts P (Pass) Basic explanation of Ideas for the management of chronic diseases in the case study community description. Rationale is and or health services perspective is limited. There is a superficial attempt to justify use of approaches based on evidence from the literature. 20 to >0 pts X (Fail) No/unclear explanation of ideas for the management of chronic diseases in the case study community from a health services perspective. And/or no or irrelevant use of evidence-based literature to justify the selection of approaches.
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify, use, relevant data Identifies and utilises data in a way which is brief, relevant and informs their population plan
20 to >17.0 pts HD (High distinction) Correct identification and use of data, which is described succinctly and clearly, and which supports their population plan. Draws on scholarly, government and institutional literature and resources. 17 to >15.0 pts D (Distinction) Clear description of the data used to support their population plan. Correct use of evidence-based literature. 15 to >13.0 pts C (Credit) Description of the identification and justification for their population plan. Use of evidence-based literature is adequate to support this section however, further reading will enhance this section. 13 to >10.0 pts P (Pass) Basic explanation of identification and justification of their population plan. There is a superficial attempt to use evidence-based literature in this section. 10 to >0 pts X (Fail) No/unclear explanation of identification and/or justification of their population plan. And/or no or irrelevant use of evidence-based literature to support this section.
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStructure of plan Plan makes coherent sense i.e. no internal conflicts
20 to >17.0 pts HD (High distinction) Logical and clear description of, and rationale for, all elements of the plan. Explicit link between the elements of the plan and evidence from literature. 17 to >15.0 pts D (Distinction) Clear description of, and rationale for, most elements in the plan. Logical progression and association between key elements of the plan evident. Links between the plan and the literature is described. 15 to >13.0 pts C (Credit) Rationale for the key elements of the plan evident and described. Some links made between the plan and the literature is described. 13 to >10.0 pts P (Pass) Description of the key elements of the plan adequate. Links between the elements of the plan and literature is somewhat apparent. 10 to >0 pts X (Fail) Limited or no description and or justification of the plan. Link between elements of the plan and the literature is not apparent.
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeManagerial perspective Maintains a managerial (rather than clinical) perspective.
10 to >8.5 pts HD (High distinction) Maintains a managerial perspective throughout the assignment. 8.5 to >7.5 pts D (Distinction) Maintains a managerial perspective through the majority of the assignment. 7.5 to >6.5 pts C (Credit) Maintains a managerial perspective through most of the assignment. 6.5 to >5.0 pts P (Pass) Demonstrates a managerial perspective in the assignment. 5 to >0 pts X (Fail) Limited or no managerial perspective in the assignment.
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, style and referencing Produces a document utilising correct grammar, spelling, formatting, style and reference list.
10 to >8.5 pts HD (High distinction) Fluent writing style with consistent formatting, use of headings and sub-headings, and accurate referencing. 8.5 to >7.5 pts D (Distinction) Clear language with consistent formatting, use of headings and sub-headings, and accurate referencing. 7.5 to >6.5 pts C (Credit) Generally clear language with mainly consistent formatting and few errors in referencing. 6.5 to >5.0 pts P (Pass) Writing is less clear, with deficits in spelling, grammar, punctuation or referencing. Inconsistent formatting. 5 to >0 pts X (Fail) Writing is unclear, with numerous deficits in spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting, or referencing.
Total Points: 100
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER