support@ulcius.com   +1 (417) 242-6748

Discussion: Comparing Frameworks for Analyzing Organizations

Discussion: Comparing Frameworks for Analyzing Organizations

Discussion: Comparing Frameworks for Analyzing Organizations

Avedis Donabedian’s work generated a pivotal means of assessing organizational performance relative to structure, process, and outcomes. However, it is clearly not sufficient to view health care quality merely in terms of outcomes—the structures and processes that facilitate these outcomes are equally as important.

ORDER NOW FOR COMPREHENSIVE, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS

In this Discussion, you consider multiple frameworks that can be used to analyze an organization. As you proceed, consider how these frameworks allow you to examine the interplay of interdependent and related parts and processes that comprise the systems within an organization, as well as the arrangements or structures that connect these parts. Discussion: Comparing Frameworks for Analyzing Organizations

 

To prepare:

Investigate and reflect on the systems and structures of an organization with which you are familiar. Consider the following:

What is the reporting structure?

Who holds formal and informal authority?

How many layers of management are there between the frontline and the highest office-holders of the organization?

How are interdisciplinary teams organized?

How is communication facilitated?

How well integrated is decision making among clinical personnel and administrative professionals?

How are particular service lines organized?

Which departments, groups, and/or individuals within the organization are responsible for monitoring matters related to performance, such as quality and finances?

Select two of the following frameworks:

Learning organizations, presented in the Elkin, Haina, and Cone article

Complex adaptive systems (CAS), presented in the Nesse, Kutcher, Wood, and Rummans article

Clinical microsystems, presented in the Sabino, Friel, Deitrick, and Sales-Lopez article

Good to great, presented in the Geller article

The 5 Ps, presented in the ASHP Foundation article

Review the Learning Resources for each of the frameworks that you selected. Also conduct additional research to strengthen your understanding of how to use each framework to assess an organization.

Compare the two frameworks. How could each framework be used to identify opportunities to improve performance? In particular, how would you use each of these frameworks to analyze the organization that you have selected?

 

Post an analysis of the systems and structures of the organization you selected, sharing specific examples. Explain insights that you gained by comparing the two frameworks, and how each can be used to assess an organization, identify a need for improvement, and, ultimately, enhance the performance of an organization.

 

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

 

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days using one or more of the following approaches:

Compare the organizational structure of your colleague’s selected organization to your own.

Ask a clarifying question.

Select an attribute of the identified organizational structure and ask your colleague to elaborate on how this attribute is evidenced in their organization. Discussion: Comparing Frameworks for Analyzing Organizations

 

Required Readings

Hickey, J. V., & Brosnan, C. A. (2017). Evaluation  of health care quality in for DNPs (2nd  ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Chapter 1, “Evaluation and DNPs: The Mandate for Evaluation” (pp. 3-36)

Chapter 3, “Conceptual Models for Evaluation in Advanced Nursing Practice” (pp. 61-86)

Chapter 6, “Evaluating Organizations and Systems” (pp. 127-142)

Chapter 1 defines microsystem, mesosystem, and macrosystem and notes that evaluation can focus on one of these levels or all three. Chapter 5 examines the evaluation of organizations and systems.

Sadeghi, S., Barzi, A., Mikhail, O., & Shabot, M. M. (2013). Integrating quality and strategy in health care organizations, Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Chapter 2, “Understanding the Healthcare Organization” (pp. 31–43)

Although this chapter focuses on hospitals, the authors provide information about strategic planning and organizational structure that is applicable in many health care settings. The authors examine financial and quality issues as key aspects of performance measurement.

Elkin, G., Zhang, H., & Cone, M. (2011). The acceptance of Senge’s learning organisation model among managers in China: An interview study. International Journal of Management, 28(4), 354–364.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 

This article outlines the five disciplines that Senge argued could be found in a learning organization. The authors also discuss the worldview that is inherent in business organizations in China and explain how this relates to Senge’s theory.

Geller, E. S. (2006). From good to great in safety: What does it take to be world class? Professional Safety, 51(6), 35–40.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 

Geller reviews and applies Collin’s foundational Good to Great theory from its focus on financial success to safety.

Nesse, R. E., Kutcher, G., Wood, D., & Rummans, T. (2010). Framing change for high-value healthcare systems. Journal for Healthcare Quality, 32(1), 23–28.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 

This article explores how to implement change in complex adaptive systems (CAS) such as health care. The authors purport that an understanding of the principles of change management in CAS is critical for success.

Sabino, J. N., Friel, T., Deitrick, L. M., & Salas-Lopez, D. (2009). Striving for cultural competence in an HIV program: The transformative impact of a microsystem in a larger health network. Health & Social Work, 34(4), 309–313.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 

The authors discuss cultural competence as part of a patient-centered perspective on health care delivery. They examine an approach to creating innovation that originates at the unit (microsystem) level and can be diffused to the larger health care environment (macrosystem). Discussion: Comparing Frameworks for Analyzing Organizations

ASHP Foundation. (n.d.). Assessing your microsystem with the 5 Ps. Retrieved February 5, 2012, from http://www.ashpfoundation.org/lean/CMS9.html

 

This article discusses 5 Ps—purpose, patients, professionals, processes, and patterns—that you can analyze to deepen your understanding of a microsystem.

Document: Course Project Overview (PDF)

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2013f). Organizational structures. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

 

Note:  The approximate length of this media piece is 3 minutes.

 

Dr. Carol Huston discusses the influence of organizational structure on the delivery of quality care.

  • attachment

    usw1_nurs_6231_discussionrubric_1.doc

    MSN Discussion Rubric

    Criteria Levels of Achievement
      Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Room for Improvement Poor Performance
    Content-Main Posting 30 to 30 points

    -Main posting addresses all criteria with 75% of post exceptional depth and breadth supported by credible references.

    27 to 29 points

    -Main posting addresses all criteria with 75% of post exceptional depth and breadth supported by credible references.

    24 to 26 points

    Main posting meets expectations. All criteria are addressed with 50% containing good breadth and depth.

    21 to 23 points

    Main posting addresses most of the criteria. One to two criterion are not addressed or superficially addressed.

    0 to 20 points

    Main posting does not address all of criteria, superficially addresses criteria. Two or more criteria are not addressed.

    Course Requirements and Attendance 20 to 20 points

    -Responds to two colleagues’ with posts that are reflective, are justified with credible sources, and ask questions that extend the Discussion.

    18 to 19 points

    -Responds to two colleagues’ with posts that are reflective, are justified with credible sources, and ask questions that extend the Discussion.

    16 to 17 points

    Responds to a minimum of two colleagues’ posts, are reflective, and ask questions that extend the Discussion. One post is justified by a credible source.

    14 to 15 points

    Responds to less than two colleagues’ posts. Posts are on topic, may have some depth, or questions. May extend the Discussion. No credible sources are cited.

    0 to 13 points

    Responds to less than two colleagues’ posts. Posts may not be on topic, lack depth, do not pose questions that extend the Discussion.

    Scholarly Writing Quality 30 to 30 points

    -The main posting clearly addresses the Discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with more than two credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors. ***The use of scholarly sources or real life experiences needs to be included to deepen the Discussion and earn points in reply to fellow students.

    27 to 29 points

    -The main posting clearly addresses the Discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with more than two credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors.

    24 to 26 points

    -The main posting clearly addresses the Discussion criteria and is written concisely. The main posting is cited with a minimum of two current credible references that adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. Contains one to two spelling or grammatical errors.

    21 to 23 points

    -The main posting is not clearly addressing the Discussion criteria and is not written concisely. The main posting is cited with less than two credible references that may lack credibility and/or do not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

    0 to 20 points

    -The main posting is disorganized and has one reference that may lack credibility and does not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition or has zero credible references. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

    Professional  Communication Effectiveness 20 to 20 points

    -Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues and response to faculty questions are answered if posed. -Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly Discussion topic.

    18 to 19 points

    -Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are cited with at least one credible reference per post and a probing question that extends the Discussion. Adheres to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. No spelling or grammatical errors.

    16 to 17 points

    -Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion demonstrate effective professional communication through deep reflective discussion which leads to an exchange of ideas and focus on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are cited with at least one credible and/or contain probing questions that extends the Discussion. Adheres to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have one to two spelling or grammatical errors.

    14 to 15 points

    -Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. -Provides opinions that may not be concise or ideas not effectively written in Standard Edited English. -Responses posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication that does not extend the Discussion, leads to an exchange of ideas and/or not focused on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are not cited and/or do not contain a probing question. May not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

    0 to 13 points

    -Communication may lack professional tone or be disrespectful to colleagues. -Provides opinions that may not be concise or ideas not effectively written in Standard Edited English -Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective professional communication through discussion that does not extend the Discussion, do not lead to an exchange of ideas and/or not focused on the weekly Discussion topic. -Responses are not cited and do not contain a probing question. May not adhere to the correct format per the APA Manual 6th Edition. May have multiple spelling or grammatical errors.

    Timely Submission 0 to 0 points

    All criteria met: Initial post submitted on time. Response to two peer initial posts. Response on 3 separate days.

    -5 to 0 points

    5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers or 5 points deducted for responding less than three days.

    -10 to -5 points

    5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers and 5 points deducted for responding less than three days.

    -10 to -10 points

    10 points deducted for Initial post submitted late.

    -20 to -15 points

    Initial post submitted late and 5 points deducted for responding to less than two peers and/ or 5 points deducted for responding less than three days.

    © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 4 of 4

  • attachment

    wal_nurs6231_03_a_en-cc.zip

    WAL_NURS6231_03_A_EN-CC.mp4

Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100
Use the following coupon code :
ulcius