Evidence-Based Practice and the Quadruple Aim

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW:

1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM

2). ATLEAST 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS

3). PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED RUBRIC DETAILS. 

Thank you.  

Healthcare organizations continually seek to optimize healthcare performance. For years, this approach was a three-pronged one known as the Triple Aim, with efforts focused on improved population health, enhanced patient experience, and lower healthcare costs.

More recently, this approach has evolved to a Quadruple Aim by including a focus on improving the work life of healthcare providers. Each of these measures are impacted by decisions made at the organizational level, and organizations have increasingly turned to EBP to inform and justify these decisions.

To Prepare:

• Read the articles by Sikka, Morath, & Leape (2015); Crabtree, Brennan, Davis, & Coyle (2016); and Kim et al. (2016) provided in the Resources.
• Reflect on how EBP might impact (or not impact) the Quadruple Aim in healthcare.
• Consider the impact that EBP may have on factors impacting these quadruple aim elements, such as preventable medical errors or healthcare delivery.

To Complete:

Write a brief analysis (no longer than 2 pages) of the connection between EBP and the Quadruple Aim.

Your analysis should address how EBP might (or might not) help reach the Quadruple Aim, including each of the four measures of:

• Patient experience
• Population health
• Costs
• Work life of healthcare providers

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name:

 

NURS_6052_Module01_Week01_Assignment_Rubric

• Grid View
• List View

 

Write a brief analysis of the connection between evidence-based practice and the Quadruple Aim. Your analysis should address how evidence-based practice might (or might not) help reach the Quadruple Aim, including each of the four measures of:
· Patient experience
· Population health
· Costs
· Work life of healthcare providers

Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.

Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.

Written Expression and Formatting—The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.

Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Points: Points Range: 77 (77%) – 85 (85%) The analysis clearly and accurately addresses in detail how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. The analysis accurately and thoroughly explains in detail how the four measures of patient experience, population health, costs, and work-life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. The analysis provides a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim. The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the analysis provided with credible and detailed examples. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 68 (68%) – 76 (76%) The analysis accurately addresses how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. The analysis accurately explains how the four measures of patient experience, population health, and work life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. The analysis provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim. The response integrates at least 1 outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the analysis provided and may include some detailed examples. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 60 (60%) – 67 (67%) The analysis inaccurately or vaguely addresses how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. The analysis inaccurately or vaguely explains how the four measures of patient experience, population health, and work life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim. The analysis provides an inaccurate or vague analysis of the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim with a vague or inaccurate analysis of outside resources. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the analysis provided and may include vague or inaccurate examples. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 59 (59%) The analysis inaccurately and vaguely addresses how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim or is missing. The analysis inaccurately and vaguely explains how the four measures of patient experience, population health, and work life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim or is missing. The analysis provides a vague and inaccurate analysis of the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim with a vague and inaccurate analysis of outside resources. The response fails to integrate any resources to support the analysis provided or is missing. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) APA format errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (five or more) APA format errors. Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

Write a brief analysis of the connection between evidence-based practice and the Quadruple Aim. Your analysis should address how evidence-based practice might (or might not) help reach the Quadruple Aim, including each of the four measures of:
· Patient experience
· Population health
· Costs
· Work life of healthcare providers–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
77 (77%) – 85 (85%)

The analysis clearly and accurately addresses in detail how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim.

The analysis accurately and thoroughly explains in detail how the four measures of patient experience, population health, costs, and work-life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim.

The analysis provides a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim. The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the analysis provided with credible and detailed examples.

Good
68 (68%) – 76 (76%)

The analysis accurately addresses how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim.

The analysis accurately explains how the four measures of patient experience, population health, and work life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim.

The analysis provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim. The response integrates at least 1 outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the analysis provided and may include some detailed examples.

Fair
60 (60%) – 67 (67%)

The analysis inaccurately or vaguely addresses how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim.

The analysis inaccurately or vaguely explains how the four measures of patient experience, population health, and work life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim.

The analysis provides an inaccurate or vague analysis of the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim with a vague or inaccurate analysis of outside resources. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the analysis provided and may include vague or inaccurate examples.

Poor
0 (0%) – 59 (59%)

The analysis inaccurately and vaguely addresses how evidence-based practice either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim or is missing.

The analysis inaccurately and vaguely explains how the four measures of patient experience, population health, and work life of healthcare providers either supports or does not support the Quadruple Aim or is missing.

The analysis provides a vague and inaccurate analysis of the four measures supporting or not supporting the Quadruple Aim with a vague and inaccurate analysis of outside resources. The response fails to integrate any resources to support the analysis provided or is missing.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive.

Fair
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

Poor
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Fair
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Poor
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting—The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

Good
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors.

Fair
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)

Contains several (three or four) APA format errors.

Poor
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Contains many (five or more) APA format errors.

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6052_Module01_Week01_Assignment_Rubric