Overview Assessment Director Assignment Help: How to Answer This Question

Understanding this question requires applying core subject principles.

What This Question Is About

This question relates to overview assessment director and requires a structured academic response.

How to Approach This Question

Break the problem into smaller parts and analyze each logically.

Key Explanation

This topic involves overview assessment director. A strong answer should include explanation, application, and examples.

Original Question

2. Overview of Assessment The Director of Clinical Governance has asked you and your team to implement one of the recommendations put forward from assignment 1. Your group will need to follow the co-design process and present this to the Clinical Governance Group to ensure agreement. You will need to demonstrate the process and your final approach to implementing the electronic patient journey board to a new location. Students will present their approach and recommendations in class as a group using slides to the class. 3. Assessment Task 1. Team Formation:  Form a team of four to five students, each from different disciplines (i.e. IT, Health, Management, Social Sciences). 2. Problem Exploration:  Explore the issues presented with regards to privacy concerns of the journey board and its relocation. 3. Collaborative Solution Development:  Work together within your multidisciplinary team to propose a comprehensive solution to the identified problem. 4. Group Presentation A group will present the solution following the Co-Design process that includes: Empathise Empathise the unique aspects and needs related to users. Analyse the current theories and practices relevant to digital health systems related to the electronic patient journey board. Define Clearly identify the problem statement with respect to the Electronic Patient Journey Board. Ideate Co-design In the development of the digital health system design, who needs to be involved? What will be the specific roles and responsibilities of your collaborators? What value will each collaborator add to the digital health system design? Ideate Using evidence, how can the electronic patient journey board be moved to a safer location. What are the design requirements to consider for the electronic patient journey board relocation? Prototype Create a proof-of-concept prototype. How do you plan to design the revised location of the electronic patient journey board? Explain your design methodology with justification. Evaluation and Test Highlight the method(s) used to evaluate the effectiveness of the electronic patient journey board. Evaluate the proof of concept of the solution - will it work, how does it address the problem, feasibility, usability, and adoption? Legal, Social, Moral and Ethical Considerations Highlight legal, social, moral, and ethical issues that need to be considered in the design, development, and deployment of the electronic journey board. Identify one issue each for legal, social, moral and ethical consideration. How important is it to address these considerations? Provide recommendations for how to address these issues Impact Analysis of Cultural, Financial, and Economic Factors Highlight cultural, economic and financial impacts on the safety, effectiveness and efficiency of health care, service delivery, and business models. Rubric Assessment 2 Assessment 2 Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeEmpathise 10 to >8.0 Pts HD (100 to 80%) Thoroughly identifies user needs and challenges, demonstrating deep empathy and understanding of diverse perspectives and stakeholders. 8 to >7.0 Pts DI (79 to 70%) Demonstrates deep identification of user needs and challenges, demonstrating deep empathy and understanding of diverse perspectives and stakeholders. 7 to >6.0 Pts CR (69 to 60%) Identifies user needs and challenges, demonstrating good empathy and understanding of diverse perspectives and stakeholders. 6 to >5.0 Pts Pass (59 to 50%) Identifies user needs and challenges, demonstrating basic empathy and understanding of diverse perspectives and stakeholders. 5 to >0 Pts Not Yet Competent (49 to 0%) Fails to identify user needs and challenges, demonstrating no empathy and understanding of diverse perspectives and stakeholders. 10 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeDefine 10 to >8.0 Pts HD (100 to 80%) Provides a well-defined problem statement using relevant design thinking steps, considering comprehensive socio-technical and research insights. The problem statement is clear and succinct that is logical and flows from the empathise phase. 8 to >7.0 Pts DI (79 to 70%) Provides a defined problem statement using relevant design thinking steps, considering comprehensive socio-technical and research insights. The problem statement is clear and logical but flows from the empathise phase. 7 to >6.0 Pts CR (69 to 60%) Provides a reasonable problem statement using relevant design thinking steps, and briefly considers socio-technical and research insights. The problem statement is somewhat clear and but may not flow from the empathise phase consistently. 6 to >5.0 Pts Pass (59 to 50%) Provides a problem statement but not consistent with relevant design thinking steps, considers superficially socio-technical and research insights. The problem statement is not clear and or succinct that does not flow from the empathise phase. 5 to >0 Pts Not Yet Competent (49 to 0%) Fails to provide a problem statement or consider socio-technical and research insights. 10 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeIdeate 20 to >16.0 Pts HD (100 to 80%) The group demonstrates excellent research into the theory and practices relevant to the exploration, design, and deployment of the EPJB. Excellent stakeholder engagement is shown in the approach of co-design during the ideation process. 16 to >14.0 Pts DI (79 to 70%) The group demonstrates very good research into the theory and practices relevant to the exploration, design, and deployment of the EPJB. Very good stakeholder engagement is shown in the approach of co-design during the ideation process. 14 to >12.0 Pts CR (69 to 60%) The group demonstrates some research into the theory and practices relevant to the exploration, design, and deployment of the EPJB. Stakeholder engagement is demonstrated but limited in nature in the approach of co-design during the ideation process. 12 to >10.0 Pts Pass (59 to 50%) The group demonstrates basic or superficial research into the theory and practices relevant to the exploration, design, and deployment of the EPJB. Stakeholder engagement is considered but only briefly in the approach of co-design during the ideation process. 10 to >0 Pts Not Yet Competent (49 to 0%) The group fails to demonstrate research into the theory and practices relevant to the exploration, design, and deployment of the EPJB. Stakeholder engagement is absent in the approach of co-design during the ideation process. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomePrototype and Test 25 to >20.0 Pts HD (100 to 80%) Justifies innovative solutions with comprehensive reasoning, detailing strengths, weaknesses, and thorough testing plans. Testing of the prototyping is thorough and uses a framework that the group can test against the problem statement and social, moral, legal and ethical standards. The group identifies and discusses in detail the feasibility, usability, and adoption of the solution. 20 to >17.5 Pts DI (79 to 70%) Justifies innovative solutions with detailed reasoning, detailing strengths, weaknesses, and thorough testing plans. Testing of the prototyping is detailed and uses a framework that the group can test against the problem statement and social, moral, legal and ethical standards. The group addresses feasibility, usability, and adoption of the solution. 17.5 to >15.0 Pts CR (69 to 60%) Justifies known solutions with good reasoning, detailing strengths, weaknesses, and thorough testing plans. Testing of the prototyping is considered the framework is somewhat unclear that the group can test against the problem statement and social, moral, legal and ethical standards. The group considers feasibility, usability, and adoption of the solution. 15 to >12.5 Pts Pass (59 to 50%) Justifies basic solutions with basic reasoning, but only briefly addresses strengths, weaknesses, and testing plans. Testing of the prototyping is basic and the framework is not consistent or absent can test against the problem statement and social, moral, legal and ethical standards. The group superficially addresses feasibility, usability, and adoption of the solution. 12.5 to >0 Pts Not Yet Competent (49 to 0%) Fails to provide a solution that is consistent nor address strengths, weaknesses, and testing plans. Little to no testing of the prototyping is considered and does not consider testing against the problem statement and social, moral, legal and ethical standards. The group fails to consider feasibility, usability, and adoption of the solution. 25 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeSocial, Moral, Legal, and Ethical Considerations 15 to >12.0 Pts HD (100 to 80%) The group thoroughly addresses and considers the moral, social, legal, and ethical issues throughout each phase of the co-design lifecycle for the EPJB. Examples of each describe a deep understanding of the considerations. 12 to >10.5 Pts DI (79 to 70%) The group provides a detailed approach how it addresses and considers the moral, social, legal, and ethical issues throughout each phase of the co-design lifecycle for the EPJB. Examples of each describe a very good understanding of the considerations. 10.5 to >9.0 Pts CR (69 to 60%) The group describes how it addresses and considers the moral, social, legal, and ethical issues throughout each phase of the co-design lifecycle for the EPJB. Some examples are provided demonstrating a good understanding of the considerations. 9 to >7.5 Pts Pass (59 to 50%) The group briefly addresses and considers some of the moral, social, legal, and ethical issues throughout each phase of the co-design lifecycle for the EPJB. Some examples of each demonstrate a basic understanding of the considerations. 7.5 to >0 Pts Not Yet Competent (49 to 0%) The group fails to address or consider the moral, social, legal, and ethical issues throughout each phase of the co-design lifecycle for the EPJB. No or poor examples of each demonstrate poor undestanding of the considerations. 15 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeImpact Analysis – Cultural, Economic, and Financial Impacts 15 to >12.0 Pts HD (100 to 80%) The group thoroughly considers the societal, cultural, economic and financial impacts of the opportunity and proposed solution for the EPJB.Examples of each demonstrate a deep understanding of the considerations. 12 to >10.5 Pts DI (79 to 70%) The group provides a detailed consideration of the societal, cultural, economic and financial impacts of the opportunity and proposed solution for the EPJB.Examples of each demonstrate a deep understanding of the considerations. 10.5 to >9.0 Pts CR (69 to 60%) The group describes how it considers the societal, cultural, economic and financial impacts of the opportunity and proposed solution for the EPJB.Some examples provide a good understanding of the considerations. 9 to >7.5 Pts Pass (59 to 50%) The group briefly considers some of the societal, cultural, economic and financial impacts of the opportunity and proposed solution for the EPJB. Some examples demonstrate a basic understanding of the considerations. 7.5 to >0 Pts Not Yet Competent (49 to 0%) The group fails to address or consider the societal, cultural, economic and financial impacts of the opportunity and proposed solution for the EPJB.No or poor examples demonstrate a little or no understanding of the considerations. 15 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeLanguage and communication 5 to >4.0 Pts HD (100 to 80%) Presentation is exceptionally well-organised with engaging visual and textual elements; all members present effectively and demonstrated that they have worked effectively and collaboratively. Each member presents an equal portion of the presentation. 4 to >3.5 Pts DI (79 to 70%) Presentation is very good and well-organised with engaging visual and textual elements; all members present effectively and demonstrated that they have worked effectively and collaboratively. Each member presents an equal portion of the presentation. There are some minor lapses in logical flow in the presenters but does not detract from the presentation. 3.5 to >3.0 Pts CR (69 to 60%) Presentation is well-organised with visual and textual elements; all members present and demonstrated that they have worked collaboratively. Each member presents a portion of the presentation. There are some lapses in logical flow in the presenters but does not detract from the overall presentation. 3 to >2.5 Pts Pass (59 to 50%) Presentation is reasonably well organised with some good visual and textual elements; all members present but not equally which may demonstrate lack of collaboration. There are lapses in logical flow or visual elements between the presenters which has some impact on the overall presentation. 2.5 to >0 Pts Not Yet Competent (49 to 0%) Presentation is poorly organised with little or no visual and textual elements; not all member present or there are some who present more than others demonstrating poor teamwork. There are significant lapses in logical flow or visual elements between the presenters which impacts on the presentation. 5 pts Total points: 100 Note: refereces should not be more than 5 years

******CLICK ORDER NOW BELOW AND OUR WRITERS WILL WRITE AN ANSWER TO THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT, DISCUSSION, ESSAY, HOMEWORK OR QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. OUR PAPERS ARE PLAGIARISM FREE*******."