Assessment 2 Information

Subject Code:MBA621Subject Name:Assessment Title: Assessment Type: Length:Case Study Slide Deck Individual PowerPoint presentation slides with notes 2000 words (+/- 10% allowable range) 20 slides with 100 words per slideWeighting:35%Total Marks: Submission:100 OnlineDue Date:Weeks 7

Your taskAssessment Brief

Develop a PowerPoint Presentation (x 20 slides) with notes (100 words per slide).

Assessment Description

The purpose of this individual assessment is to foster students’ ability to utilise data and a systems- thinking approach to predict the role and influence of preventative strategies and technology on demand for healthcare in the future. Students will debate the ethical issues that can arise in the management of health care systems. They will utilise these skills to develop plans and recommendations to create ways for systems and management challenges to be resolved. In addition, they will make an inventory of resource requirements applicable to a variety of healthcare settings, focusing on vulnerable populations.

Assessment Instructions

This assessment requires students to undertake an analysis of a health service and consider how well it is prepared to meet the needs of Australia’s ageing population.

Students may select any specialist health service from within their own state and should be from the health sectors c) OR e) as described below:

Primary Care (e.g. General Practice, Dental Service).

Primary Health Care (e.g. Drug and Alcohol Service, Aboriginal Health Services).

Secondary Care (e.g. Pathology Services, Breast Screening Services).

Tertiary Care (e.g. Public or Private Hospitals).

Quaternary Care (e.g. specialised tertiary care such as neurosurgery, cardiac surgery, plastic surgery, and transplantation).

This analysis should be undertaken using systems thinking approach and should use the WHO six building blocks of a health system framework. The building blocks are:

Service Delivery: good service delivery comprises quality, access, safety and coverage.Health Workforce: a well-performing workforce consists of human resources management, skills and policies.Information: a well-performing system ensures the production, analysis, dissemination and use of timely and reliable information.Medical Products, Vaccines and Technologies; procurement and supply programs need to ensure equitable access, assured quality and cost-effective use.Financing: a good health financing system raises adequate funds for health, protects people from financial catastrophe, allocates resources, and purchases good and services in ways that improve quality, equity, and efficiency.

Leadership and Governance (Stewardship): effective leadership and governance ensure the existence of strategic policy frameworks, effective oversight and coalition- building, provision of appropriate incentives, and attention to system design and accountability.

It is important that you view the PowerPoint entitled ‘Tools for Systems Thinking’ available in the assessments portal BEFORE you begin your assessment.

The PowerPoint provides an overview of several tools used for undertaking systems thinking approach to analysis. Make sure you read the slides and review all the additional resources supplied.

Your assessment is essentially in two parts:

In part one, you should position your chosen service within the broader Australian heath system by examining its interconnectedness, boundaries and relationships using a systems perspective. You should use at least one (1) systems thinking tool.

In part two, you should analyse your chosen service and its preparedness to meet the needs of Australia’s ageing population using the WHO six building blocks of a health system framework. You should use at least two (2) systems thinking tools.

Assessment Submission

Your assessment submission will be a PowerPoint slide deck made up of:

Twenty (20) slides focussing on the assessment requirements providing graphic and /or knowledge content as required.

Corresponding notes for each of the 20 slides addressing assessment requirements, to a maximum of 100 words per slide, i.e. 2,000 words maximum.

An additional two (2) slides that do not form a part of the word count, one a title slide and the other a slide to accommodate the listing of references.

There is no expectation that students will deliver the presentation.

Late assignment submission penalties

Penalties will be imposed on late assignment submissions in accordance with Kaplan Business School “late assignment submission penalties” policy.

Number of daysPenalty1* – 9 days5% per day for each calendar day late deducted from the total marks available10 – 14 days50% deducted from the total marks available.After 14 daysAssignments that are submitted more than 14 calendar days after the due date will not be accepted, and the student will receive a mark of zero for the assignment(s).NoteNotwithstanding the above penalty rules, assignments will also be given a mark of zero if they are submitted after assignments have been returned to students

*Assignments submitted at any stage within the first 24 hours after the deadline will be considered to be one day late and therefore subject to the associated penalty

For more information, please read the full policy

Important Study Information

Academic Integrity Policy

KBS values academic integrity. All students must understand the meaning and consequences of cheating, plagiarism and other academic offences under the Academic Integrity and Conduct Policy.

What is academic integrity and misconduct? What are the penalties for academic misconduct? What are the late penalties?

How can I appeal my grade?

Word Limits for Written Assessments

Submissions that exceed the word limit by more than 10% will cease to be marked from the point at which that limit is exceeded.

Study Assistance

Students may seek study assistance from their local Academic Learning Advisor or refer to the resources on the MyKBS Academic Success Centre page. Click here for this information.

MBA621 Assessment 2 Marking Rubric – Case Study Slide Deck 35%

Marking Criteria ( /100)F (Fail) 0 – 49%P (Pass) 50 – 64%C (Credit) 65 – 74%D (Distinction) 75 – 84%HD (High Distinction) 85 -100%PART 1: The position of the chosen service within the broader Australian heath system is identified.   /10 marksThe chosen service is inadequately described, and its position within the broader Australian heath system is not identified fully.The chosen service is described, and its position within the broader Australian heath system is identified.The chosen service is described, and its position within the broader Australian heath system is identified and analysed using a systems perspective.The chosen service is described, and its position within the broader Australian heath system is identified and critically analysed using a systems perspective with evidence of theory identification.The chosen service is described, and its position within the broader Australian heath system is identified and critically analysed using a systems perspective with evidence of theory application.The interconnectedness, boundaries and relationships of the chosen service are identified and analysed.   /10 marksThe chosen service’s interconnectedness, boundaries and relationships are poorly identified.The chosen service’s interconnectedness, boundaries and relationships are identified.The chosen service’s interconnectedness, boundaries and relationships are identified, and basic analysis is performed.The chosen service’s interconnectedness, boundaries and relationships are identified, and higher-order analysis is performed.The chosen service’s interconnectedness, boundaries and relationships are identified, higher-order analysis and critical thinking are performed.A systems thinking perspective and tools are employed in the analysis of the chosen service.       /10 marksReporting is undertaken with little / no evidence of using a systems perspective and/or system thinking tools.The analysis is undertaken using a systems perspective and one (1) systems thinking tool.The analysis is undertaken using a systems perspective and more than one (1) systems thinking tool.The analysis is undertaken using a systems perspective and more than one (1) systems thinking tool. There is evidence of theory identification to underpin findings.The analysis is undertaken using a systems perspective and two or more systems thinking tools. There is evidence of theory identification and application to underpin findings.PART 2: The chosen service is analysed regarding its preparedness to meet the needs of Australia’s ageing population.   /10 marksThe chosen service’ preparedness to meet the needs of Australia’s ageing population is inadequately described and poorly analysed using a systems perspective.The chosen service’ preparedness to meet the needs of Australia’s ageing population is described.The chosen service’ preparedness to meet the needs of Australia’s ageing population is described and analysed using a systems perspective.The chosen service’ preparedness to meet the needs of Australia’s ageing population is described and critically analysed using a systems perspective with evidence of theory identification.The chosen service’ preparedness to meet the needs of Australia’s ageing population is described and critically analysed using a systems perspective with evidence of theory application.The chosen service is analysed using the WHO six building blocks of a health system framework.       /30 marks – 5 marks eachThe chosen service is not/poorly analysed using the required framework.The chosen service is analysed, to a basic level, using the WHO six building blocks of a health system framework.The chosen service is analysed, to a more complex level, using the WHO six building blocks of a health system framework.The chosen service is analysed, to a complex level, using the WHO six building blocks of a health system framework. Systems thinking and engagement with the theory is evident.The chosen service is analysed, to a highly complex level, using the WHO six building blocks of a health system framework. Systems thinking and engagement with theory and critical thinking is evident.At least two (2) systems thinking tools are utilised in the building blocks analysis.       /10 marksReporting is undertaken with little/no evidence of utilising system thinking tools.The analysis is undertaken using a systems perspective and two (2) systems thinking tools.The analysis is undertaken using a systems perspective and more than two (2) systems thinking tools.The analysis is undertaken using a systems perspective and more than two (2) systems thinking tools. There is evidence of theory identification to underpin findings.The analysis is undertaken using a systems perspective and three or more systems thinking tools. There is evidence of theory identification and application to underpin findings.

PowerPoint deck adopts a clear and logical structure consistent with KBS guidelines.       /5 marksPoorly organised and difficult to follow and/or does not contain the required components.Addresses criteria, adopts a clear and logical structure consistent with KBS guidelines.Adopts a clear and logical structure, consistent with KBS guidelines and is of a professional standard.Adopts a clear and logical structure, is consistent with KBS guidelines, is of a professional standard, with a logical progression from subsection to subsection, with clear relevance to the intended audience.Adopts a clear and logical structure, is consistent with KBS guidelines, is of a professional standard, with a logical progression from subsection to subsection, with clear relevance to the intended audience. It is error-free and of a standard, that would easily be adopted as a best practice exemplar.Appropriate theory and research presented.       /5 marksPresents insufficient evidence of research and does not refer to relevant theory.Presents limited evidence of research and refers minimally to theory with some links to the topic.Presents evidence of research and the inclusion of appropriate theory to justify statements and assertions.Presents evidence of sound research and includes a range of appropriate theories to justify statements and assertions.As with distinction, seamlessly integrating research and theoretical frameworks to justify statements and assertionsProfessional language, presentation and engagement.       /5 marksThe language used in slides and notes is not of a professional standard, inappropriate for both topic and audience.The presentation is mostly appropriate for the topic and audience, with some issues such as clarity or too much jargon language.The presentation is appropriate for the topic and audience, with little to no issues, offering some engaging content.The presentation is of a high professional standard, using appropriate business language and offering a range of examples using multimedia or interactive content.As with distinction, the presentation is responsive to the audience, with a highly engaging delivery, sequence and clarity.In-text citations and referencing.       /5 marksNeither in-text referencing nor reference list adheres to Kaplan Harvard Referencing Style.In-text referencing or the resultant reference list adheres to Kaplan Harvard Referencing Style, with some errors.Both in-text referencing and the resultant reference list adhere to Kaplan Harvard Referencing Style, with some errors.Both in-text referencing and the resultant reference list adhere to Kaplan Harvard Referencing Style, with only occasional minor errors.Both in-text referencing and the resultant reference list adhere strictly to Kaplan Harvard Referencing Style, with no errors.Feedback and grades will be released via MyKBS

Tags: academicwriting, artassignment, assignmentaustralia, assignmentcanada, assignmentdeadline, assignmentdone, assignmentnewzealand, assignmentoman, assignmentseason, assignmentuniversity, assignmentwork, assignmentwriter, assignmentwritinghelp, bhfyp, collegeassignment, essayhelper, essaytime, essaytips, essaywriter, essaywritinghelp, help, java, onassignmentphx, photoassignments, pmphotoassignments, student, studentlife, students, writing