Vulnerable groups diabetes profile
Intent:
In this assessment, we ask you to examine the demographic and current health status profiles of the 2770 postcode geography and identify which groups you think might be more or less vulnerable to diabetes and its clinical and social consequences. We have defined the characteristics of ‘vulnerability’ in module 3 of this subject. Feel free to use that model of vulnerability but if you modify it, remember to explain how and why you have done so.
Objective:
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):
1.1 Critique, interpret and synthesise data and research findings to develop safe, effective and creative evidence-based solutions to healthcare challenges.
1.2 Propose relevant problem solving and human factors theories to the analysis and research of common and complex issues inherent in the management and evaluation of healthcare services.
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.
3.1 Create and lead social and ethical accountability to ensure efficient use of resources and equity of access to optimal and safe health care.
3.2 Validate the importance of integrating stakeholder partnerships in all healthcare decision-making activities.
5.1 Demonstrate respect and value for world view differences and in particular Australian Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing.
5.2 Critically reflect upon the impact of ongoing colonisation and its pervasive discourse on Indigenous Australians and their health and wellbeing.
5.3 Recognise the diversity of Indigenous Australians and integrate this knowledge into practice.
Weighting: 30%
Due Date: Monday of Week 5 by 23:55 pm AEST (Sydney time)
Length: 1500 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
Background:
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.
Task
Briefly define your definition of vulnerability and its connection to chronic disease and diabetes in particular in approximately 250 words.
Identify which demographic groups in the postcode 2770 you think are likely to meet these criteria for intersecting vulnerability status and diabetes risk in approximately 250 words (you can use data here, as long as it is kept brief).
Suggest some options (these could be one or a mix of clinical, non-clinical, policy-based, service-based or community-focused) for improving effective management of (rising) levels of diabetes in 2770 community in approximately 500 words.
Identify how these steps might improve quality outcomes, risk management and community benefit in 2770 in approximately 500 words.
Submitting your assessment:
Write your response in a Microsoft Word document and submit the assessment via Canvas. For more information on submission of assessments go to ‘Submitting your assessments’ page.
Rubric
Assessment 2: Vulnerable groups diabetes profile
Assessment 2: Vulnerable groups diabetes profile
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify, describe vulnerable groups from a health service perspective.
Identifies and describes vulnerable groups or groups at risk of diabetes in postcode 2770 from a health services perspective.
40 to 34.0 pts
HD (High distinction)
A 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 the 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 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 the 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.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify, use data to support argument
Identifies and utilises data in a way which is brief, relevant and informs the argument
30 to 25.5 pts
HD (High distinction)
Correct identification and use of data, which is described succinctly and clearly and which clearly supports their argument for their selection of groups more or less vulnerable to diabetes. Draws on scholarly, government and institutional literature and resources.
25.5 to 22.5 pts
D (Distinction)
A clear description of the data used to support their argument for their selection of groups more or less vulnerable to diabetes. Correct use of evidence-based literature.
22.5 to 19.5 pts
C (Credit)
Description of the identification and justification for their selection of groups more or less vulnerable to diabetes. Use of evidence-based literature is adequate to support this section however, further reading will enhance this section.
19.5 to 15.0 pts
P (Pass)
A basic explanation of identification and justification of the selection of groups more or less vulnerable to diabetes. There is a superficial attempt to use evidence-based literature in this section.
15 to 0 pts
X (Fail)
No/unclear explanation of identification and/or justification of the selection of groups more or less vulnerable to diabetes, or no groups selected. And/or no or irrelevant use of evidence-based.
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeManagerial perspective
Maintains a managerial (rather than clinical) perspective
20 to 17.0 pts
HD (High distinction)
Maintains a managerial perspective throughout the assignment.
17 to 15.0 pts
D (Distinction)
Maintains a managerial perspective through the majority of the assignment.
15 to 13.0 pts
C (Credit)
Maintains a managerial perspective through most of the assignment.
13 to 10.0 pts
P (Pass)
Demonstrates a managerial perspective in the assignment.
10 to 0 pts
X (Fail)
Limited or no managerial perspective in the assignment.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, style, 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.
10 pt
