NU530 Unit 6 Assignment Accreditation Plan

NU530 Unit 6 Assignment Accreditation Plan

NU530 Unit 6 Assignment Accreditation Plan

One way an organization communicates with its constituents is by its accreditation. Your department head knows that you are in a graduate program and has asked you to assist the department head that works with accreditation and licensure in your facility. She has asked you to develop an initial plan to gain accreditation for a new facility that your organization is opening. Choose one accreditation that is appropriate for the facility. Write an introductory paragraph then follow it with the initial plan in table format and should include:

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE HERE ON: NU530 Unit 6 Assignment Accreditation Plan

Thanks for stopping by this assessment. We can assist you in completing it and other subsequent ones. Our expert writers will comprehensively review instructions, synthesize external evidence sources, and customize an A-grade paper. Kindly scroll down to review the sample written by our top writers.

One type of accreditation needed for the facility and in 1-2 sentences, why it is needed for the facility
Estimate the amount of time it will take for the new facility to attain accreditation
What resources are needed
Estimate direct costs for accreditation
Estimate the financial impact on revenue if not earning accreditation
For example:

Type of Accreditation

Time Needed
Resources Required

Direct Costs for Accreditation Financial impact if Accreditation not Earned

Provide a paragraph under the table with conclusions and any potential limitation of this accreditation.

Please provide 3-4 references from scholarly journals and websites provided in the course.

Estimated time to complete: 4 hours

Submit your assignment by Sunday at midnight.

Rubric

NU530 Unit 6 Assignment Accreditation Plan
NU530 Unit 6 Assignment Accreditation Plan
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTopic
NU530-CO5
10 pts
Level 5

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE HERE ON: NU530 Unit 6 Assignment Accreditation Plan

Identifies a creative, focused, and manageable topic that addresses potentially significant aspects of the topic.
9 pts
Level 4
Identifies a creative, focused, and manageable topic that addresses important and notable aspects of the topic.
8 pts
Level 3
Identifies a focused and manageable/doable topic that appropriately addresses relevant aspects of the topic.
7 pts
Level 2
Identifies a topic that while manageable/doable, is too narrowly focused and leaves out relevant aspects of the topic.
6 pts
Level 1
Identifies a topic that is far too general and wide-ranging as to be manageable and doable.
0 pts
Level 0
Does not clearly identify a topic that is relative to the assignment.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExisting Knowledge, Research, and/or Views
NU530-CO5; PRICE-C; PRICE-R
20 pts
Level 5
Synthesizes in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches.
18 pts
Level 4
Examines in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches.
16 pts
Level 3
Explains in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches.
14 pts
Level 2
Relates information from relevant sources representing limited points of view/approaches.
12 pts
Level 1
Relates information from irrelevant sources representing limited points of view/ approaches.
0 pts
Level 0
Information is irrelevant to the topic. No clear point of view/approaches.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDesign Process
NU530-CO5; PRICE-P
20 pts
Level 5
All elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are skillfully developed. Appropriate methodology or theoretical frameworks may be synthesized from across disciplines or from relevant sub-disciplines.
18 pts
Level 4
Most critical elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are appropriately developed. Appropriate methodology or theoretical frameworks may be analyzed from across disciplines or from relevant sub-disciplines.
16 pts
Level 3
Some critical elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are appropriately developed, however, more subtle elements are ignored or unaccounted for.
14 pts
Level 2
Critical elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are missing, incorrectly developed, or unfocused.
12 pts
Level 1
Inquiry design demonstrates a misunderstanding of the methodology or theoretical framework.
0 pts
Level 0
The design of the paper is not based upon a clear methodology or framework.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis
NU530-CO1; NU530-CO5; PRICE-I
35 pts
Level 5
Organizes and synthesizes evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.
32 pts
Level 4
Organizes and analyzes evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.
28 pts
Level 3
Organizes evidence to reveal important patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.
25 pts
Level 2
Organizes evidence, but the organization is not effective in revealing important patterns, differences, or similarities.
21 pts
Level 1
Describes evidence, but it is not organized and/or is unrelated to focus.
0 pts
Level 0
Lists evidence, but it is not organized and/or is unrelated to focus.
35 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion
NU530-CO1; NU530-CO5; PRICE-I
10 pts
Level 5
States a conclusion that is a logical extrapolation from the inquiry findings.
9 pts
Level 4
States a conclusion that is a logical interpretation of the inquiry findings.
8 pts
Level 3
States a conclusion focused solely on the inquiry findings. The conclusion arises specifically from and responds specifically to the inquiry findings.
7 pts
Level 2
States a general conclusion that, because it is so general, also applies beyond the scope of the inquiry findings.
6 pts
Level 1
States an ambiguous or unsupportable conclusion from inquiry findings.
0 pts
Level 0
States an illogical conclusion from inquiry findings.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLimitations and Implications
PRICE-I
10 pts
Level 5
Insightfully discusses in detail relevant and supported limitations and implications.
9 pts
Level 4
Examines relevant and supported limitations and implications.
8 pts
Level 3
Discusses relevant and supported limitations and implications.
7 pts
Level 2
Presents relevant and supported limitations and implications.
6 pts
Level 1
Presents limitations and implications, but they are unsupported.
0 pts
Level 0
Presents limitations and implications, but they are irrelevant.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting
PRICE-I
10 pts
Level 5
The paper exhibits a superior command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling.
9 pts
Level 4
The paper exhibits a strong command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impair the flow of communication.
8 pts
Level 3
The paper exhibits a command of written English language conventions. The paper has minor errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impact the flow of communication.
7 pts
Level 2
The paper exhibits a limited command of written English language conventions. The paper has frequent errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impede the flow of communication.
6 pts
Level 1
The paper exhibits little command of written English language conventions. The paper has errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader to stop and reread parts of the writing to discern meaning.
0 pts
Level 0
The paper does not demonstrate command of written English language conventions. The paper has multiple errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader difficulty discerning the meaning.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA
PRICE-P; PRICE-I
10 pts
Level 5
The required APA elements are all included with correct formatting, including in-text citations and references.
9 pts
Level 4
The required APA elements are all included with minor formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.
8 pts
Level 3
The required APA elements are all included with multiple formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.
7 pts
Level 2
The required APA elements are not all included and/or there are major formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.
6 pts
Level 1
Several APA elements are missing. The errors in formatting demonstrate a limited understanding of APA guidelines, in-text-citations, and references.
0 pts
Level 0
There is little to no evidence of APA formatting and/or there are no in-text citations and/or references.
10 pts
Total Points: 125

Accreditation Plan Table

For a healthcare organization to function properly, it is essential that it get the appropriate certifications and accreditations. This improves the organization’s overall resilience while also maintaining its high quality standards. It shows that the organization is doing what it should be doing to provide excellent service and gain the confidence of its customers. Nonaccredited institutions have been shown to be unreliable by accrediting bodies and to lack legitimacy in the eyes of the general public (Tabrizi & Gharibi, 2019).  Another advantage of accreditation for an organization is that it guarantees compliance with the guidelines. While many healthcare organizations likely will succeed in gaining accreditation, others may find it more difficult. The accreditation is only given to organizations that have shown the effectiveness of their policies and procedures in saving lives.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE HERE ON: NU530 Unit 6 Assignment Accreditation Plan

Multiple studies have shown a correlation between a hospital’s level of accreditation and the quality of care that patients get. Accreditation is still considered to be a desired and attainable baseline level of output that is compared against actual output, despite the fact that this link may not be entirely evident. This is essential to the functioning of any kind of healthcare organization Tabrizi & Gharibi, 2019).  There exist about 70 different bodies participating in accreditation of healthcare organizations, each of which is tasked with formulating and implementing norms that are tailored particularly for healthcare institutions. The Joint Commission is among the most often utilized accreditation agencies because of its reputation for excellence in the healthcare industry (The Joint Commission, 2021). The value of this accrediting entity, along with its associated expenses and the resources that are necessary, is broken down in the following table:

 

Type of Accreditation	Time Needed	Resources Required	Direct Costs for Accreditation	Financial Impact if not accredited
Patient safety and positive health outcomes can only be guaranteed by adhering to rigorously established standards of care, such as those set out by The Joint Commission. The quality of services and processes at a certain organization will be evaluated for their degree of conformity. As a result, corporations will have to take responsibility for maximizing the quality and effectiveness of the services they provide to their clients. The Joint Commission is an independent, not-for-profit agency that evaluates healthcare facilities based on their ability to deliver high-quality, safe treatment to their patients (Wadhwa & Huynh, 2022).	Timeframes for this accreditation body depend on the region of the onsite survey being conducted but typically vary from two weeks to two months. This procedure can take place over the course of three years, and in order to maintain the accreditation, it will need certain changes.	Maintaining an up-to-date knowledge base in accordance with the most recently changed Joint commission regulations and practices is essential to ensuring that the organization is operating within acceptable parameters. To guarantee that acceptable procedures are being followed, one may employ a variety of resource bases, such as those that focus on enhancing quality characteristics, such as conferences and seminars. Every year, organizations should conduct an assessment of their emergency preparedness and response procedures (Hussein et al., 2021).	An organization will be charged a yearly fee beginning after the first year of accreditation and continuing through the subsequent two years. The charge for conducting the survey on-site will serve as coverage for all of the survey’s associated costs. Sixty percent of the total cost is paid in the survey year, with twenty percent spread out over the next two years. Each of these expenses is subject to change or adjustment based on the services that are offered by the institution that receives accreditation from the Joint Commission.	The possibility of an organization not being accredited raises the issue of what the repercussions would be in such a scenario. If a corporation does not have accreditation, it will have a significant impact on the modes of payment. In order to get funding from government programs like Medicaid and Medicare, a corporation must first become accredited. Furthermore, if a corporation is not highly ranked for its risk management processes, the insurance premiums will rise (Ibrahim et al., 2022).

 

By gaining an understanding of the value that accreditation brings to an institution, leaders will be better equipped to adopt future choices that will benefit both the institution and the members of the community that it exists to serve. A federal accrediting authority or entity might purchase and defend a losing war for an institution, providing it with extra benefits. The organization is responsible for developing its own rules and regulations, and its personnel is responsible for ensuring that these regulations are adhered to in order to guarantee appropriate work procedures. However, efficiency will be improved under the watchful eye of TJC professionals who observe the regulations and procedures established at the national level. The expense involved in obtaining accreditation from this authority is one of the drawbacks connected with using it (Wadhwa & Huynh, 2021). It is necessary to have a significant amount of financial resources available in order to launch a medical institution since it is impossible to avoid investing in certain aspects that are necessary for the institution to be successful. Although Medicare and Medicaid programs, which provide funding for the vast majority of healthcare institutions, are capable of making payments at the national level, there are numerous other factors that come into play. One of these factors is the group of people inside an organization who watch over things to make sure that the standards of practice are maintained at acceptable limits. Patients and their families will feel more at ease when confronted with difficult healthcare decision-making thanks to this accrediting body. The assurance that patients and their families will get high-quality medical treatment is another benefit (The Joint Commission, 2021). Nevertheless, in spite of these positive aspects, there are still some negative aspects to consider. Some individuals may not be able to pay for the TJC certification due to its high cost, which includes a charge of around $46,000 each year to retain the accreditation (Wadhwa & Huynh, 2021).

References

Ibrahim, S. A., Reynolds, K. A., Poon, E., & Alam, M. (2022). The evidence base for US Joint Commission hospital accreditation standards: Cross sectional study. BMJ, e063064. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2020-063064

Hussein, M., Pavlova, M., Ghalwash, M., & Groot, W. (2021). The impact of hospital accreditation on the quality of healthcare: A systematic literature review. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07097-6

The Joint Commission (2021). https://www.jointcommission.org/

Wadhwa, R., & Huynh, A. P. (2022). The Joint Commission. In StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing.