Assessment 1: Evaluation of an existing health plan (40%)

Length: 1500 words

Submission Details: Via Turnitin on vUWS.
Feedback Details: Via grademark. The second assignment is scaffolded on this first one. Feedback should be carefully reviewed to improve marks
in the next assignment

Rationale
The major focus of this report is to promote deeper learning skills. This includes developing critical analysis skills ie identifying short comings,
limitations and what works well, and questioning of how things are done now. Deeper learning also includes the ability to extrapolate, extend and
apply principles and theory based on the evidence. Critical analysis can be demonstrated by developing recommendations that emerge logically
from the literature reviewed and argument proposed.
A Case Study will be supplied for an imaginary Local Health District (LHD) in NSW. The current situation for this LHD will be analysed and students
will submit a Situation Analysis addressed to the Board of the LHD. This means students have to understand recent developments in the health
field by examining changes in the Australian Health system and use ideas generated from Australian and international literature ie dated from
2010 onwards. If possible consulting with senior managers in the field can be used to support ideas. Data is supplied in the case study and
students are expected to analyse this data to generate evidence of what will change in future and what will become issues that need to
be resolved. Quality of writing skills, logical thinking and clear analysis is also being assessed to help improve competency- an essential
requirement for health services managers.
You are reminded that this must be all your own work. It is not a group project and you may NOT share resources, readings, format or
any written work or electronic work with another student whether past, present or future. Nor may you show another student any of your
work. If this occurs it can be considered as collusion.

Task
Examine the current health plan in the Borlean LHD case study. This requires students to think about the process of planning as much as the
content of the case to structure the report and to use the data to identify gaps in the present services. Prepare a situation analysis for the case
study provided on vUWS for Borlean LHD. Notes will be provided on vUWS and students are encouraged to work through the examples given to
create the data and case-related information. The report must be in proper report format so students need to find and examine examples of this to
understand the structure of a formal report. Also, this case study will be explored at the first workshop. Students must read lectures prior to this
workshop. Note: Excess words will not be marked.

Criteria
You will be assessed on the following:

Proof reading of text to ensure accuracy of grammar, spelling and punctuation.

Writing clearly and in an appropriate formal style for an academic report.

Ability to analyse data to support argument
Application of planning process.
Evidence to support recommendations

Rubric: Assessment 1
Criteria

Unsatisfactory

Pass

Credit

Distinction

Executive summary
covers some key findings.
Contents Page has
several errors.
Attempt to follow report
format, with some
inconsistencies throughout
the report.
Meets word limit.

Executive summary
covers most key
findings.
No errors in Contents
Page.
Follows report format,
with minor errors.

High Distinction

PRESENTATION
Use of report format

Marks 5
Language use
Writes in academic style with correct
spelling, grammar and punctuation.

No executive summary, or
resembles an abstract i.e. talks
about what you did not what you
found or executive summary does
not cover all key findings. No
Contents Page.
Inaccurate formatting of tables,
graphs etc., and headings or none
included, no spacing between
paragraphs and used underlining
instead of bold.
Exceeds word limit
< 2.5
Paragraphs poorly constructed /
confusing. Little evidence of proof
reading or use of grammar and spell
check.
Writing is verbose, convoluted or
difficult to follow, or informal e.g.
uses first person and/or subjective
style used e.g. use of slang such as
isnt, dont etc. or little use of
relevant technical language and/or
frequent us of unqualified assertions.

Marks 5

< 2.5

2.5
Paragraphs adequately
constructed with clear t
Topic sentence. Some
language errors interfere
with meaning.
Writing generally clear
may not be succinct, may
use informal or subjective
style, sometimes uses
technical language and
may qualify some
assertions.
2.5

3 3.5
Paragraphs mostly
well- constructed.
Text proof read with
minor errors in
spelling, punctuation,
grammar and typos.
Writing is clear and
succinct but may
revert to informal or
subjective style,
3 3.5

Executive
summary covers
all key findings.
No errors in
Contents Page.
Good use of
Report Format.

Concise executive
summary covers all
key findings.
No errors in Contents
Page. Professional
use of Report Format.

4
Paragraphs wellconstructed.
Proof-read, legible
presentation of
text with
conventional
spelling, grammar
and punctuation,
though with few
typos.

4.5 5
Professional
presentation with
logical flow, good
construction and proof
read.

4.5 5

Criteria
Referencing with ethical scholarship
and academic integrity.

Unsatisfactory

Pass

Does not use referencing and

citations to identify some or all
sources used in assessment.
Frequent use of unqualified
assertions. Incorrect in-text citation
format e.g. citations only given at
end of sentences or paragraphs;
author and year or report title and
year not integrated into sentences.
Page reference missed for
quotations or excessive quoting i.e.
over 5%. APA conventions not
followed.

Marks 5

Credit

Distinction

Correct citation format for

50% of sources;

Correct citation format

for 65% of sources;

References inadequate
and frequent errors in
referencing style and the
way they are integrated
into text.

Uses minimal quoting

of less than 2%.
References well
integrated into text

References provided but

not according to APA style.
Some references missing
or incorrect or cited refs
not used in text.

< 2.5

2.5

References provided
to support most claims
but APA style used
inconsistently.

High Distinction

Correct citation
format for 75% of
sources;

Correct citation format

for all sources;

Uses minimal
quoting of less
than 2%.
References well
integrated into text
References
provided to
support claims
and references
consistently follow
APA style.

Uses minimal quoting

of less than 2%.
References well
integrated into text
Referencing
consistent, thorough
and well used to
support claims.

3 3.5

4.5 5

Good use of research

with more than ten
references. Use of
international literature.

Very good use of

research with
suitable
references to
support argument.
Good use of
international
literature.

Excellent research and

widely read to support
argument.

4.5 5
Excellent and accurate
analysis of case study.

CONTENT
Evidence of wide and relevant
reading to support arguments

Insufficient references cited to

support argument eg less than ten

Marks 5
Ability to analyse the case study data
supplied

Little if any data analysis

Marks 15
Demonstrate ability to further extend,
apply or improve upon approach taken
in the chosen plan. Original and
relevant recommendations (recs) for
change improvements.
Marks 5

Sufficient references cited

to support argument eg
minimum of ten.
May not all be current and
from appropriate sources

< 2.5

2.5
Some analysis.

3 3.5
Good attempt to
analyse data with
some gaps

Very good
analysis. .

7.5

7.5-9.5
May include inappropriate
recs or miss some
recommendations. Some
attempt to develop
original ideas.

10-10.75
Missed some recs.
Good attempt to
develop original ideas.

11-12.5
Appropriate
recommendations.
Well developed
and original ideas.

13-15
Demonstrate ability to
further extend, apply
or improve upon
approach taken in the
chosen plan. Original
and relevant recs.

< 2.5

2.5

3 3.5

4.5 5

No or inappropriate
recommendations. Little if any
attempt to develop new ideas.