Benchmark Assignment: Diverse Population Health Policy Analysis/NUR-550

Benchmark Assignment: Diverse Population Health Policy Analysis/NUR-550

Benchmark Assignment: Diverse Population Health Policy Analysis/NUR-550

Assessment Description
Select a current or proposed health care policy that is designed to provide equitable health care for a diverse population. Create a 12-15-slide PowerPoint presentation discussing the health care policy and how it improves a specific populations access to quality, cost-effective health care. Create speaker notes of 100-250 words for each slide. Include additional slides for the title and references.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE HERE ON: Benchmark Assignment: Diverse Population Health Policy Analysis/NUR-550

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 for YOU!!!

Include the following in your presentation:

Describe the policy selected.
Discuss the diverse population that will be affected by this policy.
Explain how the policy is designed to improve cost-effectiveness and health care equity for the diverse population.
Discuss why the policy is financially sound and explain how the policy incorporates the nursing perspective and relevant ethical, legal, and political factors. Provide rationale to support your explanation.
Describe what state, federal, global health policies, or goals the policy is related to and explain the degree to which each helps achieve equitable health care for the diverse population.
Discuss advocacy strategies for improving access, quality, and cost-effective health care for the diverse population selected.
Discuss the professional and moral obligation of master’s prepared nurses to respect human dignity and advance the common good through working to promote health and prevent disease among diverse populations from a Christian perspective.
You are required to cite eight peer-reviewed sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

Refer to the resource, “Creating Effective PowerPoint Presentations,” located in the Student Success Center, for additional guidance on completing this assignment in the appropriate style.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:

MBA-MSN; MSN-Nursing Education; MSN Acute Care Nurse Practitioner-Adult-Gerontology; MSN Family Nurse Practitioner; MSN-Health Informatics; MSN-Health Care Quality and Patient Safety; MSN-Leadership in Health Care Systems; MSN-Public Health Nursing

2.1: Examine financially sound health care policy that incorporates the nursing perspective and relevant ethical, legal, and political factors.

2.2: Determine advocacy strategies for improving access, quality, and cost-effective health care for diverse populations.

4.2: Integrate appropriate state, federal, and global health policies and goals into the design of equitable health care for populations.

4.3: Examine the professional and moral obligation of master’s-prepared nurses to respect human dignity and advance the common good through working to promote health and prevent disease among diverse populations from a Christian perspective.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE HERE ON: Benchmark Assignment: Diverse Population Health Policy Analysis/NUR-550

Rubric Criteria

Description of Policy Designed to Provide Equitable Health Care
5 points
Criteria Description
Description of Policy Designed to Provide Equitable Health Care

5. Excellent
5 points
The policy is clearly and accurately described.

4. Good
4.6 points
The policy is adequately described. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Satisfactory
4.4 points
The policy is summarized. Some aspects are unclear or inaccurate.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
4 points
The policy is only partially described.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The policy is not described.

Diverse Population Affected by Policy
10 points
Criteria Description
Diverse Population Affected by Policy

5. Excellent
10 points
Discussion of how a diverse population is affected by this policy is thorough. The narrative is well-supported and insightful.

4. Good
9.2 points
Discussion of how a diverse population is affected by this policy is adequate. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Satisfactory
8.8 points
Discussion of how a diverse population is affected by this policy is general. More information and support are needed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
8 points
Discussion of how a diverse population is affected by this policy is presented but is incomplete. It is unclear how the population will be affected by this policy.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Discussion of how a diverse population is affected by this policy is not presented.

Policy Design
10 points
Criteria Description
Policy Design (Cost-effectiveness and health care equity)

5. Excellent
10 points
A thorough explanation for how the policy is designed to improve cost-effectiveness and health care equity for the diverse population is clearly presented.

4. Good
9.2 points
Discussion of how the policy is designed to improve cost-effectiveness and health care equity for the diverse population is adequate. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Satisfactory
8.8 points
Discussion of how the policy is designed to improve cost-effectiveness and health care equity for the diverse population is general. More information and support are needed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
8 points
Discussion of how the policy is designed to improve cost-effectiveness and health care equity for the diverse population is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Explanation of how the policy is designed to improve cost-effectiveness and health care equity for the diverse population is not presented.

Evaluation, Soundness, Nursing Perspective, Ethics (B)
10 points
Criteria Description
Evaluation of Financial Soundness of Policy; Incorporation of Nursing Perspective; and Relevant Ethical, Legal, and Political Factors (C2.1)

5. Excellent
10 points
A thorough discussion of why the policy is financially sound and how the policy incorporates the nursing perspective and relevant ethical, legal, and political factors is clearly presented, and strong rationale is offered for support.

4. Good
9.2 points
A discussion of why the policy is financially sound and how the policy incorporates the nursing perspective and relevant ethical, legal, and political factors is adequate. Adequate rationale is provided for support. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Satisfactory
8.8 points
A discussion of why the policy is financially sound and how the policy incorporates the nursing perspective and relevant ethical, legal, and political factors is general. Some rationale is offered for support. More information and support are needed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
8 points
A discussion of why the policy is financially sound and how the policy incorporates the nursing perspective and relevant ethical, legal, and political factors is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A discussion of why the policy is financially sound and how the policy incorporates the nursing perspective and relevant ethical, legal, and political factors is not presented.

Integration of State, Federal, and Global Health Policies and Goals in Design of Equitable Care (B)
10 points
Criteria Description
Integration of State, Federal, and Global Health Policies and Goals in Design of Equitable Care (C4.2)

5. Excellent
10 points
The state, federal, and global health policies or goals the policy is related to and the degree to which each helps achieve equitable health care for the diverse population are thoroughly explained. The narrative is accurate and well-supported.

4. Good
9.2 points
The state, federal, and global health policies or goals the policy is related to and the degree to which each helps achieve equitable health care for the diverse population are adequately discussed. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Satisfactory
8.8 points
The state, federal, and global health policies or goals the policy is related to and the degree to which each helps achieve equitable health care for the diverse population are summarized. Some aspects are unclear or inaccurate.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
8 points
The state, federal, and global health policies or goals the policy is related to and the degree to which each helps achieve equitable health care for the diverse population are only partially discussed

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The state, federal, and global health policies or goals the policy is related to and the degree to which each helps achieve equitable health care for the diverse population are not discussed.

Advocacy Strategies for Improving Access, Quality, and Cost-Effective Health Care (B)
10 points
Criteria Description
Advocacy Strategies for Improving Access, Quality, and Cost-Effective Health Care (C2.2)

5. Excellent
10 points
Well-developed advocacy strategies for improving access, quality, and cost-effective health care for the diverse population selected are discussed.

4. Good
9.2 points
Advocacy strategies for improving access, quality, and cost-effective health care for the diverse population selected are discussed. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Satisfactory
8.8 points
General advocacy strategies for improving access, quality, and cost-effective health care for the diverse population selected are summarized. More information and support are needed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
8 points
Advocacy strategies for improving access, quality, and cost-effective health care for the diverse population selected are incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Advocacy strategies for improving access, quality, and cost-effective health care for the diverse population selected are not discussed.

Examination of Responsibilities of Master’s Prepared Nurses (B)
10 points
Criteria Description
Examination of Responsibilities of Master’s Prepared Nurses (C4.3)

5. Excellent
10 points
Well-developed advocacy strategies for improving access, quality, and cost-effective health care for the diverse population selected are discussed. The professional and moral obligation of master’s prepared nurses to respect human dignity and advance the common good through working to promote health and prevent disease among diverse populations from a Christian perspective are thoroughly discussed. The narrative is insightful and well supported.

4. Good
9.2 points
The professional and moral obligation of master’s prepared nurses to respect human dignity and advance the common good through working to promote health and prevent disease among diverse populations from a Christian perspective are adequately discussed. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Satisfactory
8.8 points
The professional and moral obligation of master’s prepared nurses to respect human dignity and advance the common good through working to promote health and prevent disease among diverse populations from a Christian perspective are summarized. Some aspects are unclear. Rationale or support is needed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
8 points
The professional and moral obligation of master’s prepared nurses to respect human dignity and advance the common good through working to promote health and prevent disease among diverse populations from a Christian perspective are only partially discussed.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The professional and moral obligation of master’s prepared nurses to respect human dignity and advance the common good through working to promote health and prevent disease among diverse populations from a Christian perspective are not discussed.

Presentation of Content
15 points
Criteria Description
Presentation of Content

5. Excellent
15 points
The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.

4. Good
13.8 points
The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive information from reliable sources.

3. Satisfactory
13.2 points
The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization or in their relationships to each other.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
12 points
The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear.

Layout
10 points
Criteria Description
Layout

5. Excellent
10 points
The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance the readability of the text.

4. Good
9.2 points
The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text.

3. Satisfactory
8.8 points
The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
8 points
The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident.

Mechanics of Writing
5 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. Excellent
5 points
Writer is clearly in control of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good
4.6 points
Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present.

3. Satisfactory
4.4 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
4 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.

Documentation of Sources
5 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Excellent
5 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. Good
4.6 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. Satisfactory
4.4 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory
4 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.

Total
100 points