NSG3EPN: Public Inquiry and Organizational Management Report

This report, prepared for the College of Science, Health and Engineering's School of Nursing and Midwifery, examines the Djerriwarrh Health Services case, focusing on the organizational management aspects related to a public inquiry into perinatal deaths. It delves into the critical domains of quality and safety, highlighting deficiencies in clinical care, lack of high-quality education, and the need for credentialing strategies. The report also addresses leadership management, specifically open leadership styles, innovation, creativity, and accountability within healthcare settings. It analyzes the impact of these factors on patient outcomes and suggests improvements through credentialing, training, and accountability models. The analysis draws upon literature to support assertions, including the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care review report, and explores the importance of leadership in addressing system failures.

College of Science, Health and Engineering
School of Nursing and Midwifery/La Trobe Rural Health School
NSG3EPN – Engagement in Professional Nursing

Assessment 2
Student ID
Date of submission
Word count

NSG3EPN – Engagement in Professional Nursing
Assessment 2 – Written piece examining a public inquiry into a health system failure (1000 words - 25% of overall
mark)
Individual grading and feedback sheet
Student ID: ____________________
Criteria Excellent
(80-100%)
Very good
(70-80%)
Good
(60-70%)
Fair
(50-60%)
Poor
(<50%)
Mark

1. Response
to Module
One
Clear identification of the first
module selected relating to the public
inquiry.
Comprehensive and succinct
exploration and addressing of
assessment question. Assessment
criteria fully addressed.
Excellent analysis and integration of
evidence from the literature.
Uses extensive relevant literature to
support assertions.
(32+ marks)
Clear identification of the first
module selected relating to the
public inquiry.
Comprehensive exploration of
assessment question. Assessment
criteria fully addressed.
Very good analysis and integration of
evidence from the literature.
Uses a range of relevant literature to
support assertions.
(28-31 marks)
Identification of the first module
selected relating to the public inquiry.
Good exploration of assessment
question. Assessment criteria mostly
addressed.
Good analysis and integration of
evidence from the literature.
Uses mostly relevant literature to
support assertions.
(24-27 marks)
Identification of the first module
selected relating to the public inquiry.
Fair exploration of assessment
question criteria with some key areas
not addressed.
Superficial analysis and integration of
evidence from the literature.
Uses some relevant literature to
support assertions.
(20-23 marks)
Poor identification of the first module
selected relating to the public inquiry.
Confused or absent exploration of
assessment question. Assessment
criteria not addressed.
Minimal to no analysis or integration
of evidence from the literature.
Superficial or no use of relevant
literature to support assertions.
(<20 marks)
/40
2. Response
to Module
Two
Clear identification of the second
module selected relating to the public
inquiry.
Comprehensive and succinct
exploration of assessment question
criteria.
Excellent analysis and integration of
evidence from the literature.
Clear identification of the second
module selected relating to the public
inquiry.
Comprehensive exploration of
assessment question criteria.
Very good analysis and integration of
evidence from the literature.
Identification of the second module
selected relating to the public inquiry.
Good exploration of assessment
question. Assessment criteria mostly
addressed.
Good analysis and integration of
Identification of the second module
selected relating to the public inquiry.
Fair exploration of assessment
question criteria with some key areas
not addressed.
Superficial analysis and integration of
Poor identification of the second
module selected relating to the public
inquiry.
Confused or absent exploration of
assessment question. Assessment
criteria not addressed.
Minimal to no analysis or integration
of evidence from the literature.
/40

Uses extensive relevant literature to
support assertions.
(32+ marks)
Uses a range of relevant literature to
support assertions.
(28-31 marks)
evidence from the literature.
Uses mostly relevant literature to
support assertions.
(24-27 marks)
evidence from the literature.
Uses some relevant literature to
support assertions.
(20-23 marks)
Superficial to no use of relevant
literature to support assertions.
(< 20 marks)
3. Use of
literature
Very well supported with credible,
current and peer reviewed sources.
Demonstrated clear and consistent
evidence of critical appraisal of
reference material
(8+ marks)
Well supported with current and
peer reviewed sources.
Demonstrated mostly consistent
evidence of critical appraisal of
reference material.
(7 marks)
Supported with references but with
some inappropriate material and/or
poor quality sources.
Inconsistently demonstrated
evidence of critical appraisal of
reference material
(6 marks)
Poorly supported with references
and with much inappropriate
material and/or poor quality
sources. Limited evidence of critical
appraisal of reference material
(5 marks)
Poorly supported with references
and with much inappropriate
material and/or from poor quality
sources.
No evidence of critical appraisal of
reference materials.
(<5 marks)
/10
4. Written
expression
and
referencing
Writing was fluent with very
minimal spelling, typing or
grammatical errors.
Key ideas from the literature were
effectively paraphrased and cited.
Utilised correct APA 6th style for
citations and reference list
(8+ marks)
Writing was fluent with very
minimal spelling, typing or
grammatical errors.
Key ideas from the literature were
effectively paraphrased and cited.
Utilised correct APA 6th style for
citations most (>70%) of the time.
(7 marks)
Writing was not always fluent with
some spelling, typing or grammatical
errors.
Key ideas from the literature were
not always effectively paraphrased
or cited.
Utilised correct APA 6th style for
citations and reference list most
(>60%) of the time.
(6 marks)
Writing may not be fluent with some
spelling, typing or grammatical
errors.
Key ideas from the literature were
not always effectively paraphrased
or cited.
Utilised correct APA 6th style for
citations and reference list >50% of
the time.
(5 marks)
Writing was not fluent with many
spelling, typing or grammatical
errors.
Key ideas from the literature not
effectively paraphrased or cited.
Incorrect style for citations and
reference list more than 50% of the
time.
(<5 marks)
/10

Marks will be
deducted from
total mark when:
 Sources do not meet minimum number and/ or type specified and/or is not relevant / credible (Up to one mark deducted.)
 Referencing / citations do not adhere to APA 6 style (Up to one mark deducted.)
 Presentation does not meet requirements, language not consistently professional (Up to one mark deducted.)
 Each element meets prescribed word limit (Up to one mark deducted.)
Actual marks deducted (maximum 4 marks)
Minus
Comments:
/100÷4
=

Total mark /25
Assessor’s signature _____________________________________ Print name _____________________________________ Date:
_____________________

Running head: ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Organizational Management
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Table of Contents
Quality and Safety......................................................................................................................2
Leadership Management............................................................................................................5
References..................................................................................................................................7

2
ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Report dealing with investigation of negative Perinatal outcomes at Djerriwarrh
Health Services by Professor Euan M Wallace, showed that there lies certain problems in the
quality and safety of the health care services of Djerriwarrh Health Services. The following
report highlights the quality & safety and leadership management, two most vital domains
responsible for system failure.
Quality and Safety
According to the review report published by the Australian Commission on Safety
and Quality in Health Care (2015), the Djerriwarrh Health Services encountered a cluster of
perinatal deaths at Djerriwarrh Health Services (2013 and 2014) (Picone & Pehm, 2015). The
main reason highlighted against this issue is deficiencies in clinical care and lack of high
quality education. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, six practitioners had conditions
on their diagnostic ability, six were cautioned and 11 practitioners lack medical registration
(Spooner, 2017).
In order to manage this risk, Bacchus Marsh Healthcare Service might have
undertaken credentialing strategy. It is a process of verifying the qualification of the
registered health practitioners while properly assessing their education background and
legitimacy (Pradarelli, Campbell & Dimick, 2015).
According to the Credentialing and Defining the Scope of Clinical Practice for
Medical Practitioners in Victorian Health Services (2011), the department requires to keep
proper policies and processes of credentialing in place in regard to all the medical
practitioners who have independent responsibility for patient care. This process must occur
before giving appointment to the medical practitioners. The review of the process must take
place once every five years. This review must be at times sudden or unplanned when
significant underperformance is being suspected (Victoria Government of Health, 2011). As