Collaborative Documentation Standards Discussion
Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457 Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5% Writer Classification: PhD competent Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours Revision: Permitted Sources: 4-6 Course Level: Masters/University College Guarantee Status: 96-99% Instructions
Collaborative Documentation Standards Discussion
After reviewing the collaborative documentation PowerPoint, identify the essential elements needed to document a service the same day it occurred.
In 750-1,000 words, define collaborative documentation standards and the benefits of using this approach in a community mental health and wellness center.
Review at least three scholarly resources on the benefits and limitations of collaborative documentation and write a comparative analysis between the positions for or against it.
Describe the basic outcome measures used in healthcare and how using collaborative documentation will assist with better outcomes.
Rounds and Dyads and Counseling Groups Discussion
Collaborative Documentation Standards Discussion
I don’t know how to handle this Health & Medical question and need guidance.
Rounds and dyads are excellent techniques for support groups and counseling groups, but they may also be effectively used in task groups, project groups, and teams to enhance decision-making processes, performance, and productivity. Discuss how you would implement the techniques observed in the videos
during the meetings of such a group. Develop 1 specific example of a round and 1 specific example of a dyad exercise, and explain how these would be valuable to the group. In your replies, offer helpful recommendations on how to refine or adapt these exercises. Feel free to share applicable experiences about
group/team meetings in your personal or professional context.
Collaborative Documentation Standards Discussion
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support 91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology 58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Collaborative Documentation Standards Discussion
Collaborative Documentation Standards Discussion