Reflective Journal: Benefits of a Capital Item

Posted: January 20th, 2023

Reflective Journal: Benefits of a Capital Item
Prompt:
Your consulting work with the physician’s group in Module Three earned you rave reviews and now your boss has asked you to put your skills to work in support of a local community health center. As the Assistant to the CFO you have been tasked with preparing a public statement on the justification of purchasing the electronic medical record.
After explaining the benefits of the EMR and making suggestions for ways the benefits can be determined, write a memo to the community health center’s Board of Directors that uses your determinations to justify the purchase of the EMR. Refer to the mini-case on page 340 of the textbook.
Create a journal assignment that:

●  Explains the benefits of the electronic medical records system (EMR)
●  Explains the ways the benefits can be estimated
●  Includes a written memo to the community health center’s board of directors that justifies the purchase of the EMR

Guidelines for Submission: You will submit two deliverables for this assignment. Your explanation of benefits should be 1-2 pages in length with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and citations in APA style were applicable. Your written memo to the community health center’s board of directors should be 1-2 pages in length with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and citations in APA style were applicable.

Module 5 Guidelines and Rubric attached below.
Textbook – page 340 attached below
Nowicki, Michael. (2018). Introduction to the financial management of healthcare organizations (7th ed.). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press. ISBN: 978156793904

Rubric for Research Paper

 
 
Outstanding – 20pts
Good  – 15pts
Fair – 10pts
Unacceptable – 5pts

 
Outline
 
Excellent section headings, indicative of a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics and subtopics clearly indicated.
Professional looking.
Good section headings, indicative to a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics clearly indicated, could use more subtopics.
 
Fair section headings, indicative that the paper has “flow”. Topics and subtopics not clearly indicated. Unclear organization of thoughts.
 
Disorganized appearance.
Relevant topics missing or incorrect, paper has no indicative “flow”.
Not professional.

Abstract
 
Highly informative, complete and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Abstract makes you want to read the paper.
Informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Somewhat informative and understandable.
 
Not very informative or understandable.
 

Structure
 
Thesis is clear, easy to find, and appropriate to the assignment.
Thesis is supported by the rest of the paper.
Paper contains a “roadmap” for the reader.
There is a logical “flow” to the topics/arguments. Conclusion follows clearly from the arguments presented.
Thesis is clear and appropriate.   Thesis fairly well supported.
Paper is fairly well organized.
Conclusion follows from the rest of the paper.
Thesis is fairly clear.
Inconsistent support for thesis. Paper weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Thesis unclear and/or inappropriate.
Thesis not supported.
Paper is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t follow from the rest of the paper.

Research
 
The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources. The bibliography is complete and reflects appropriate sources.
 
The evidence comes from the minimum valid sources. The bibliography is complete.
Valid sources are inconsistently used.  The bibliography contains minor formatting errors.
 
Multiple sources cited  incorrectly.
Bibliography missing.
 

Critical
Thinki
 
ng
Arguments are pertinent to the topic.
Arguments are logical, supported with evidence. The key arguments have been made – no major points have been left out.
Arguments are
pertinent to the topic.   Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported.
Most key arguments have been made.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical, or supported. Few key arguments have been made.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at
all, logical and supported.
Almost no key arguments have been made.