Get help from the best in academic writing.

Root Cause Analysis

In the scenario, the nurse manager and the director of pharmacy blame each other for the error. The facilitator (quality assurance person) asks everyone to avoid blaming and focus on applying the tools to analyze the data and get to the root cause of the error. While all of these tools contribute, for this Discussion, select one tool to analyze.https://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/NURS/4220/CH/mm/root_cause_analysis_at_downtown_medical/index.html*****MEDIA RESOURCE/VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT IS ATTACHED*****By Day 3Post each of the following:•    Analyze the composition of the RCA team. Explain what knowledge they can contribute to the RCA.•    Describe the collaboration in the case study that led to effective problem solving. Identify the evidence you observe in the scenario that demonstrates effective collaboration and the avoidance of blaming.•    Explain the team’s process in testing for and eliminating root causes that were not contributing.•    Select one of the performance improvement charts presented in the scenario and critique its effectiveness by explaining how it contributes to identifying the root cause and determining a solution to prevent repeat medication errors.•    Identify the contributing factors and discuss how to prevent this kind of error from occurring in the future.•    Support your response with references from peer reviewed professional nursing literature. Your posts need to be written at the capstone level.Notes Initial Post: This should be a 3-paragraph (at least 350 words) response. Be sure to use evidence from the readings and include in-text citations. Utilize essay-level writing practice and skills, including the use of transitional material and organizational frames. Avoid quotes; paraphrase to incorporate evidence into your own writing. A peer reviewed list of  reference list is required. Use the most current evidence (usually ≤ 5 years old).•    Grid View•    List View     Excellent    Proficient    Basic    Needs ImprovementRequired ContentAnalyzed the composition of the RCA team and the knowledge they can contribute to the RCA. Described the collaboration in the cases study that led to effective problem solving and identified the evidence observed in the scenario demonstrating effective collaboration and avoidance of blaming.    9 (18%) – 10 (20%)Initial post is exceptional containing well developed and insightful analysis that brings connections to nursing practice into the discussion.    8 (16%) – 8 (16%)Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion.    7 (14%) – 7 (14%)Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion.    0 (0%) – 6 (12%)Initial post lacks analysis and/or that brings little or no insight into the discussion.Required ContentExplained the team’s process in testing for and eliminating root causes. Critiqued the effectiveness of a performance improvement chart. Identified the contributing factors and discussed prevention of the type of error.    14 (28%) – 15 (30%)Initial post is exceptional containing well developed and insightful analysis that brings connections to nursing practice into the discussion.    12 (24%) – 13 (26%)Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion.    11 (22%) – 11 (22%)Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion.    0 (0%) – 10 (20%)Initial post lacks analysis and/or that brings little or no insight into the discussion.Response PostsEntered the discussion thread on 3 separate days. Wrote at least two posts to two separate peers.Responses are appropriate to the topic, substantive, and promoted discussion by one or more of the following:• contributing insight to move the discussion forward.• offering substantial and/or different points of view and asks questions to add to discussion• including extra references or websites for peers to consider• relating discussion to different areas of practice and applying concepts to practice**Additional points may be deducted for late posting per the University late policy.    9 (18%) – 10 (20%)Response posts add substantial ideas and perspectives that invite further analysis and discussion. Participated 3 or more days in the classroom and responded to more than 2 classmates.    8 (16%) – 8 (16%)Response posts are proficient and provide adequate analysis and discussion. Participated 3 days in the classroom and responds to at least two classmates.    7 (14%) – 7 (14%)Response posts are limited and provide minimal analysis and discussion. Participated less than 3 days in the classroom and/or responds to less than two classmates.    0 (0%) – 6 (12%)Response posts are inadequate and provide no analysis of discussion and/ or there is no participation in the classroom.Professional Writing: Clarity, Flow, and Organization    4.5 (9%) – 5 (10%)Content is free from spelling, punctuation, and grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates very well-formed sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is completely clear, logical, and well-organized.    4 (8%) – 4 (8%)Content contains minor spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates appropriate sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is mostly clear, logical, and well-organized.    3.5 (7%) – 3.5 (7%)Content contains moderate spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates adequate sentence and paragraph structure and may require some editing. Content presented is adequately clear, logical, and/or organized, but could benefit from additional editing/revision.    0 (0%) – 3 (6%)Content contains significant spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing does not demonstrate adequate sentence and paragraph structure and requires additional editing/proofreading. Key sections of presented content lack clarity, logical flow, and/or organization.Professional Writing: Context, Audience, Purpose, and Tone    4.5 (9%) – 5 (10%)Content clearly demonstrates awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is highly professional, scholarly, and free from bias, and style is appropriate for the professional setting/workplace context.    4 (8%) – 4 (8%)Content demonstrates satisfactory awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is adequately professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.    3.5 (7%) – 3.5 (7%)Content demonstrates basic awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is somewhat professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is mostly consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.    0 (0%) – 3 (6%)Content minimally or does not demonstrate awareness of context, audience, and/or purpose. Writing is not reflective of professional/scholarly tone and/or is not free of bias. Style is inconsistent with the professional setting/workplace context and reflects the need for additional editing.Professional Writing: Originality, Source Credibility, and Attribution of Ideas    4.5 (9%) – 5 (10%)Content reflects original thought and writing and proper paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates full adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.    4 (8%) – 4 (8%)Content adequately reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates adequate adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.    3.5 (7%) – 3.5 (7%)Content somewhat reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing somewhat demonstrates adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.    0 (0%) – 3 (6%)Content does not adequately reflect original writing and/or paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates inconsistent adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and reference.Total Points: 50

The Economics of Canadian Public Policy

The Economics of Canadian Public Policy.

 Instructions:A title page MUST be attached with your assignment; it MUST include your name(s), student number(s), and your lecture section(s). Staple your assignment (Paper clip is not accepted).Your explanation in this assignment must be in full sentences (i.e., no point form and/or abbreviations); however, you can use headings or subtitles and can draw the graphs by hands (if you feel that it helps to support your argument). The format of your assignment isLength: 3 pages (excluding title page). The length includes tables, figures, diagrams, and appendices (Any materials exceed the 3 page limit WILL NOT be read and graded).Line spacing: 1.5 or doubleFont and font size: Times New Roman, font 12Margins: Top & bottom: 2.54cm or 1″Left & right: 2.54cm or 1″A penalty of 10% of the total available marks will be imposed if you fail to do any one of the followings: Have a title page Staple your assignment The format of your report does not satisfy the requirements mentioned above.Electronic submission of your assignment will NOT be accepted.Label your graph; otherwise, marks will be subtracted.No credit will be given if you do not show/explain your work.Your answer should be structured in a way such that those know little about economics will have no difficulty understanding your argument/answer.Total marks: 50 points. MGEC38 Assignment (Fall 2018)2This assignment is related to the article “A matter of concentration”, The Economist, October 27th, 2018, page 72Go to the following link for the article:https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/10/25/economists-think-antitrust-policy-should-pay-more-attention-to-workers Question 1 (15 points)The article indicated that monopsony in the labour market could be problematic, explain the logic behind. Would there be any potential violation of the Competition Act? If so, which clauses of the Act might be violated? Explain.Question 2 (15 points)The article mentioned that regulators should take monopsony in the labour market more seriously, and three different approaches on how to handle monopsony power were being mentioned. From the regulator’s perspective, explain the advantages and drawbacks of using each of the three approaches mentioned in dealing with monopsony in the labour market.Question 3 (20 points)In light of recent economics research, the Competition Bureau is evaluating the possibility of including the effect of corporate tie-ups on the labour market in the Competition Act. The Bureau is seeking suggestions from the public, what kind of suggestions would you provide? Explain.Note: A good answer should look into factors, issues, and/or anti-competitive business practices that the Competition Bureau needs to take into consideration.

Essay Help “>Essay Help

https://onlinecustomessaywriting.com/