NOTE: Read Chapter 5: Armstrong & Sables-Braus (2020). Please answer the following questions in the form of a written paper.
Case Study
Y.H. is a family nurse practitioner (FNP) pursuing her DNP. She practices in a nurse-run primary care clinic. Y.H. has finished her coursework and is planning her DNP project. Y.H.’s primary care clinic has gathered patient-satisfaction data for approximately 24 months, and the clinic manager informs Y.H. that excessive waiting times in the waiting room and in the exam room before the FNP enters for the visit are a common cause of complaint among the clinic’s patients. Y.H. decides to employ multiple process improvement approaches to address this patient dissatisfier.
Read Chapter 5: Armstrong & Sables-Braus (2020). Please answer the following questions in the form of a written paper.
Specifics: Scholarly writing, APA 7th Edition, and limit to five pages (including references and title page).
1. Who would be members of Y.H.’s ideal team to improve patient wait times in the FNP clinic?
2. What process improvement tools lend themselves to assessing the current state of waiting times at the FNP clinic?
3. What might be some processes occurring before the FNP begins the visit that might be contributing to long wait times?
4. What data would Y.H.’s team track to assess whether changes that were implemented were actual improvements?
Case Study Rubric (1)
Case Study Rubric (1)
Criteria Ratings Pts
Question 1 • Include references as appropriate to support the overview.
view longer descriiption
22.5 to >15 pts
Very thorough and detailed; Criteria met without need for changes
15 to >11.4 pts
Overall good but lacks some pertinent information and details; Meets criteria with areas for improvement
11.4 to >0 pts
Lacks several pertinent details; Minimally meets criteria
/ 22.5 pts
Question 2 • Include references as appropriate to support the overview.
view longer descriiption
22.5 to >15 pts
Very thorough and detailed; Criteria met without need for changes
15 to >11.4 pts
Overall good but lacks some pertinent information and details; Meets criteria with areas for improvement
11.4 to >0 pts
Lacks several pertinent details; Minimally meets criteria
/ 22.5 pts
Question 3 • Include references as appropriate to support the overview.
view longer descriiption
22.5 to >15 pts
Very thorough and detailed; Criteria met without need for changes
15 to >11.4 pts
Overall good but lacks some pertinent information and details; Meets criteria with areas for improvement
11.4 to >0 pts
Lacks several pertinent details; Minimally meets criteria
/ 22.5 pts
Question 4 • Include references as appropriate to support the overview.
view longer descriiption
22.5 to >15 pts
Very thorough and detailed; Criteria met without need for changes
15 to >11.4 pts
Overall good but lacks some pertinent information and details; Meets criteria with areas for improvement
11.4 to >0 pts
Lacks several pertinent details; Minimally meets criteria
/ 22.5 pts
• Grammar/ Spelling • APA, Scholarly writing
view longer descriiption
10 to >9 pts
Exceptionally clear, logical, and thorough development. Full control of grammar, usage, and mechanics. Almost entirely free of spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors.
9 to >7 pts
May contain few spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors.
7 to >0 pts
Contains several spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors that detract from the assignment’s readability.
/ 10 pts
Total Points: 0
Choose a submission type
