7069SOH – Assessment
7069SOH – Assessment Help
In order to successfully pass this module a student is required to pass both components of the coursework below:
|Task||Credit for each component Weighting||Description||Learning Outcomes||Formative (F) or Summative (S)||Submission Date|
|1||5||10 minutes individual presentation||1||S||18/10/21|
|2||15||3000 words individual report||2, 3 and 4||S||29/11/21|
3000-word individual report addressing Learning Outcomes 2 -4
This assessment component counts for 15 credits
In 3000 words, addressing learning outcomes 2-4, complete the following assessment task:
Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of resource planning and management in a health system you are familiar with, focusing on the following key areas:
- Priority setting and decision-making processes
- Workforce planning and development
- Human resource and talent management
Conclude your evaluation with recommendations for improvement of the health system in each of the three key areas.
Your individual report will be assessed using the HLS Faculty Postgraduate Assessment Marking Rubric and the coursework 2 assessment guidelines, which you will find in the appendices in the module guide.
For coursework 2 please comply with the following submission guidance:
It is important to you and the tutors that your project is written and presented in a professional manner. The following requirements must be adhered to in the format of assignments:
1. Your limit does allow for +/- 10% words in length. The limit includes words used in tables, graphs, charts and diagrams, but excludes the front cover, references list and appendices. If you exceed the word limit you will be penalized 10% from your mark
2. The front cover page – see appendix 4 for the template in the module guide.
3. The font type should be Arial and the font size for the body of the text 12 point.
4. One and a half (1.5) line spacing must be used.
5. All pages should be numbered consecutively, in the footer on the right.
6. Your student number should be in the footer on the left.
7. References, citations, and quotations should be in Coventry University APA Referencing only. Ensure that all statements and arguments are supported with reference to the evidence in the relevant literature.
8. Any diagrams, tables, photographic images etc. should be appropriately labelled and referenced.
APPENDIX ONE – HLS Faculty Postgraduate Assessment Marking Criteria
|Excellent 72, 75, 78 82, 85, 88 90, 95, 100||The student addresses the question fully, including excellent summaries, critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation. At the higher end, the assignment may demonstrate originality and creativity.||The entire work is clearly structured, addresses the topic authoritatively, is based on extensive and critically informed background reading, and is also succinct.||A clear and convincing line of critical and evaluative argument is demonstrated throughout. A degree of originality and insight should also be present, supported by evidence of wider reading, some of which goes beyond the recommended reading.||Demonstrates creativity and some originality in the selection and presentation of evidence. Provides thorough critical analysis of seminal work, and an informed knowledge of theoretical positions. All evidence cited is correctly referenced in the text as well as in the References.|
|Very Good 62, 65, 68||The question is addressed authoritatively, with evidence of additional reading and an emphasis on analysis, synthesis and evaluation.||The evidence is presented clearly in relation to the question set. There is a sound structure which clearly links sections, and ensures arguments are fully articulated and supported.||A clear and convincing line of argument is presented, and it is fully supported by a critical evaluation of sources. Some evidence of originality and insight may be present supported by evidence of wide reading||The evidence selected is of high quality and goes beyond the recommended reading. It is presented in a well-organized way, and most claims are supported by relevant evidence that has been critically appraised.|
|Good 52, 55, 58||For the most part the question is addressed. There is evidence of an understanding of most of the issues and the relevant literature, though there may be some omissions. Evidence of some analysis, synthesis and evaluation.||A good structure but relationships between some statements and sections may not always be fully articulated. Some sections are descriptive rather than evaluative.||There is demonstration of the ability to provide some clear and structured arguments, but there is little evidence of originality. Evidence of reading from appropriate sources with some critical evaluation.||Some relevant evidence is presented which is generally well organized and there is evidence of some critical appraisal. For the most part accurate referencing of the text and reference list.|
|Pass 42, 45, 48||Some aspects of the question are addressed. A limited amount of relevant material is included, though is sometimes poorly presented. Limited evidence of analysis, synthesis and evaluation||Structure lacks coherence, relationships between statements and sections are not always articulated. The majority of work is descriptive rather than evaluative.||Some arguments are produced, but there is limited critical analysis or reference to an appropriate range of sources.||Some evidence is included but this is limited. Omissions and errors in referencing are evident.|
|FAIL 35, 30, 25, 20,10, 0||Fails to answer the question or to address the topic appropriately and is not presented at PG level.||Poor structure. There are few clear links between statements or sections, and the assignment is descriptive.||Little convincing or supported argument is presented, demonstrated a limited understanding of the topic.||Minimal reference is made to relevant and supportive evidence, with little indication of wider reading. Poor referencing.|
Appendix 2 – Coursework 2 – Individual Report Assessment Guidelines
|1||Executive summary (500 words)||A condensed version of the content of the main report, summarising the major sections, typically written once it has been completed. It should indicate what the main report is about, why it is important, what is included, recommending a specific course of action/ solution and its feasibility.|
|2||Introduction and context (1000 words)||Your introduction should cover the following: Overview of the health system which is the focus of the report, to include key demographic and health data, system goals, position in relation to the global healthcare contextAssessment of the current approaches to the key areas of resource planning and management in the system, with consideration of the assessed learning outcomesCritical evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the key areas of resource planning and management in the health system, with consideration of the assessed learning outcomes|
|3||Recommendations for Improvement (1000 words)||The section should cover the following elements, ensure that in your analysis that you address the assessed learning outcomes: Purpose – Clearly defined motivation for your recommendation, including SMART objectivesStrategic priorities – How does your recommendation fit with the priorities in the health system and wider strategic priorities at local or national levelOptions – including an option appraisalBenefits – financial and non-financial benefits linked to evidenceCosts – recurrent and non-recurrent costsRisks – identification of risks and appropriate mitigation strategies include a risk analysis or matrix|
|4||Conclusion (500 words)||The conclusion should draw the central arguments of your report together, summarise your recommendations, identify any limitations in your approach and how these could be addressed. The section should also critique the skills required by health leaders that impact on workforce and finance.|
|5||Reference List||Use the CU APA Referencing Style Home – Referencing in APA Style – LibGuides at Coventry University This referencing method should be consistently and accurately applied throughout the project. The reference list should be in alphabetical order according to author. It is vital, when proof reading your work to ensure that all sources that appear in the text are also represented in the reference list and vice versa.|