DNP 825 Part II Assignment: Benchmark Population Heath

DNP 825 Part II Assignment: Benchmark Population Heath

DNP 825 Part II Assignment: Benchmark Population Heath

Assessment Description
The purpose of this assignment is to develop an intervention for the at-risk population selected for your Population Health: Part I assignment.

General Requirements

A minimum of three scholarly or peer-reviewed research articles are required. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.
Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE ON: DNP 825 Part II Assignment: Benchmark Population Heath

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!!!

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.
Learners will submit this assignment using the assignment dropbox in the digital classroom. In addition, learners must upload this deliverable to the Learner Dissertation Page (LDP) in the DNP PI Workspace for later use.

Directions

For Part II of the Population Health assignment, propose an intervention to address the health issue for your selected at-risk population.

Include the following in a 1,250–1,500-word paper:

Prior to beginning Part II, review feedback and revise your initial paper (Part I) as indicated by your instructor. Based on these revisions and potential changes, complete Part II. Synthesize Parts I and II into a final paper.
Propose an evidence-based intervention relevant to your population-based health issue that can be implemented to improve health outcomes or decrease disparities for the at-risk population. Discuss the evidence supporting your proposed intervention and explain why your proposed intervention is realistic and appropriate for the population.
Outline a plan for implementing your proposed intervention for your at-risk population. Include community and interprofessional stakeholders needed for collaboration, permissions needed, and potential costs for implementation.
Discuss potential challenges to implementation and ways these can be addressed.
Identify a public health or health promotion theory and explain how it can be used to support the implementation of your intervention. Refer to and cite the seminal article for your theory.
Discuss the expected outcomes for the proposed intervention and how the outcomes will be measured to determine the efficacy of your proposed intervention. What is your plan if your outcomes do not show the desired improvement?
As a doctoral learner, what other factors do you believe contribute to the pervasiveness of the health issue for the at-risk group? Provide examples. Explain how you, as a doctoral learner, can advocate for social justice, equity, and ethical policies for this at-risk group. How can this be applied to different arenas in health care?
Benchmark Information

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE ON: DNP 825 Part II Assignment: Benchmark Population Heath

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:

DNP

4.4: Advocate for social justice, equity, and ethical policies within all health care arenas.

18.4 points
An adequate evidence-based intervention to improve health outcomes or decrease disparities for the selected population health issue and at-risk population is proposed. A discussion of the supporting evidence and why the proposed intervention is realistic and appropriate for the population is presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Approaching
17.6 points
A general evidence-based intervention to improve health outcomes or decrease disparities for the selected population health issue and at-risk population is proposed. Some supporting evidence is discussed. A general explanation for why the proposed intervention is realistic and appropriate for the population is presented. More information is needed for support or accuracy.

2. Insufficient
16 points
The evidence-based intervention to improve health outcomes or decrease disparities for the selected population health issue and at-risk population is incomplete. The intervention lacks supporting evidence.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A general evidence-based intervention to improve health outcomes or decrease disparities for the selected population health issue and at-risk population is omitted.

Implementation Plan
30 points
Criteria Description
Plan for implementing proposed intervention; includes required stakeholders, permissions needed and potential costs.

5. Target
30 points
A clear and well-organized plan for implementing the proposed intervention relevant to the select population is presented. The plan details community and interprofessional stakeholders needed for collaboration, permissions needed, and potential costs for implementation.

4. Acceptable
27.6 points
An adequate plan for implementing the proposed intervention relevant to the select population is presented. The plan includes community and interprofessional stakeholders needed for collaboration, permissions needed, and potential costs for implementation. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Approaching
26.4 points
A general plan for implementing the proposed intervention relevant to the select population is presented. The plan includes key community and interprofessional stakeholders needed for collaboration, general permissions needed, and an outline of some costs for implementation. More information is needed for support or accuracy.

2. Insufficient
24 points
The plan for implementing the proposed intervention relevant to the select population is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The plan for implementing the proposed intervention relevant to the select population is omitted.

Potential Challenges to Implementation
20 points
Criteria Description
Potential challenges to implementation and solutions for addressing challenges.

5. Target
20 points
The potential challenges to implementation and realistic ways in which the challenges can be addressed are thoroughly discussed.

4. Acceptable
18.4 points
The potential challenges to implementation and realistic ways in which the challenges can be addressed are adequately discussed. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Approaching
17.6 points
Some general potential challenges to implementation and ways in which the challenges can be addressed are outlined. More information is needed for support or accuracy.

2. Insufficient
16 points
The discussion on potential challenges to implementation and ways in which the challenges can be addressed is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The discussion on potential challenges to implementation and ways in which the challenges can be addressed is omitted.

Public Health or Health Promotion Theory
10 points
Criteria Description
Public health or health promotion theory to support implementation intervention; seminal article is cited.

5. Target
10 points
A public health or health promotion theory is presented. A thorough explanation for how it can be used to support the implementation of the intervention is presented. The seminal article for the theory is used for support.

4. Acceptable
9.2 points
A public health or health promotion theory is presented. An adequate explanation for how it can be used to support the implementation of the intervention is presented. The seminal article for the theory is used for support.

3. Approaching
8.8 points
A public health or health promotion theory is presented. A general explanation for how it can be used to support the implementation of the intervention is presented. An article on the theory is used for support, but it is not the seminal article.

2. Insufficient
8 points
A public health or health promotion theory is presented, but the explanation for how it can be used to support the implementation of the intervention is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A public health or health promotion theory is omitted.

Expected Outcomes
20 points
Criteria Description
Expected outcomes for the proposed intervention, methods for measuring efficacy of outcomes, and a plan if outcomes do not improve.

5. Target
20 points
Expected outcomes for the proposed intervention and how the outcomes will be measured to determine the efficacy of the proposed intervention are thoroughly discussed. A clear plan, in the event outcomes do not show the desired improvement, is presented.

4. Acceptable
18.4 points
Expected outcomes for the proposed intervention and how the outcomes will be measured to determine the efficacy of the proposed intervention are adequately discussed. A plan, in the event outcomes do not show the desired improvement, is presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Approaching
17.6 points
Expected outcomes for the proposed intervention and how the outcomes will be measured to determine the efficacy of the proposed intervention are generally discussed. A plan, in the event outcomes do not show the desired improvement, is outlined. More information is needed for support or accuracy.

2. Insufficient
16 points
A discussion for the expected outcomes for the proposed intervention and how the outcomes will be measured to determine the efficacy of the proposed intervention is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The expected outcomes for the proposed intervention are not discussed.

Additional Contributing Factors and Advocacy for At-Risk Group as Doctoral Learner (B)
20 points
Criteria Description
Advocate for social justice, equity, and ethical policies within all health care arenas. (C4.4)

5. Target
20 points
Additional factors contributing to the pervasiveness of the health issue for the at-risk group are clearly discussed and include realistic examples. Advocacy as a doctoral learner for social justice, equity, and ethical policies for the selected at-risk group, including ways this can be applied to different arenas in health care, is thoroughly explained. The narrative is well-supported and insightful.

4. Acceptable
18.4 points
Additional factors contributing to the pervasiveness of the health issue for the at-risk group are adequately discussed and include realistic examples. Advocacy as a doctoral learner for social justice, equity, and ethical policies for the selected at-risk group, including ways this can be applied to different arenas in health care, is explained. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Approaching
17.6 points
Additional factors contributing to the pervasiveness of the health issue for the at-risk group are adequately discussed and include realistic examples. Advocacy as a doctoral learner for social justice, equity, and ethical policies for the selected at-risk group, including ways this can be applied to different arenas in health care, is explained. More information is needed for support or accuracy.

2. Insufficient
16 points
A discussion on additional contributing to factors and advocacy as a doctoral learner for social justice, equity, and ethical policies for the selected at-risk group is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A discussion on additional contributing to factors and advocacy as a doctoral learner for social justice, equity, and ethical policies for the selected at-risk group is omitted.

Research Articles
10 points
Criteria Description
Research Articles

5. Target
10 points
Research articles are supportive of the rationale presented. Sources are distinctive and address all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria.

4. Acceptable
9.2 points
Research articles are timely and relevant and addresses all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria.

3. Approaching
8.8 points
Research articles are adequate. Sources are standard in relevance, quality of outside sources, or timeliness.

2. Insufficient
8 points
Few research articles are used to support the assignment. Limited research is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No research articles are used to support the assignment.

Thesis, Position, or Purpose
10 points
Criteria Description
Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.

5. Target
10 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughout and skillfully directed to a specific audience.

4. Acceptable
9.2 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.

3. Approaching
8.8 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately developed. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.

2. Insufficient
8 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.

Development, Structure, and Conclusion
10 points
Criteria Description
Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.

5. Target
10 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A convincing and unambiguous conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

4. Acceptable
9.2 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and plausible conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

3. Approaching
8.8 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

2. Insufficient
8 points
Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.

Evidence
10 points
Criteria Description
Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.

5. Target
10 points
Comprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple other perspectives are integrated effectively.

4. Acceptable
9.2 points
Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Other perspectives are integrated.

3. Approaching
8.8 points
Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.

2. Insufficient
8 points
Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.

Mechanics of Writing
16 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.

5. Target
16 points
No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.

4. Acceptable
14.72 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.

3. Approaching
14.08 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2. Insufficient
12.8 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.

Format/Documentation
14 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.

5. Target
14 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated.

4. Acceptable
12.88 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

3. Approaching
12.32 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.

2. Insufficient
11.2 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.

Total
200 points