+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Dashboard Metrics Evaluation Example
Note: The dashboards and data presented in this example assignment are made up. Do not use
them in developing your own report. They’re provided only as examples of how data could be
formatted and referred to when you create your report.
The first section of this example shows two dashboards containing metrics that the evaluation is
based upon. Be sure to reference the data from the Dashboard and Health Care
Benchmark Evaluation simulation in your evaluation.
The second section is the evaluation of the data presented in the metrics and represents
proficient-level work for all of the criteria in the scoring guide.
1
Sepsis Dashboards from Eagle Creek Hospital
(Learners: You do not have to include charts like these in your report.)
Third Quarter Sepsis Intervention Compliance
at Eagle Creek Hospital for Adults Presenting with Sepsis
Needed
Completed
Compliance
Percentage
Initial lactate within 3 hours
27
27
100%
Blood cultures drawn prior to antibiotics
27
19
70%
Antibiotics administered within 3 hours
27
24
89%
Fluid resuscitation if in septic shock within 3
hours
17
15
88%
Vasopressors if hypotension persists after
fluid resuscitation or lactate > 4mmoL/L within
6 hours
10
6
60%
Overall
108
91
84%
Intervention
Third Quarter Sepsis Intervention
Compliance and Inpatient Mortality (Sample)
Patient ID
# of Interventions
Needed
# of Interventions
Completed
Inpatient Mortality
1000
3
2
0
1009
4
4
1
1014
5
5
0
1017
5
5
0
1060
3
1
1
1074
5
4
1
1084
4
2
1
1087
5
5
0
1094
3
3
0
1106
4
4
0
Note: The staffing benchmark for nurse staffing in this unit is 2 patients per nurse.
Monthly average staffing for the unit is 2 nurse workload units. The average number of
patients in the unit per month in the third quarter was 6.75.
2
To the Director of Safety Compliance:
I have reviewed the data that you sent my way regarding our compliance with sepsis
measures and intervention compliance, plus the sample of our third quarter inpatient mortality.
The following contains my evaluation of the data, which shows that there are definitely areas
that the organization needs to improve, as well as a proposal for a specific area and target for
improvement.
Evaluation of dashboard metrics
There are numerous underperformances in the metrics regarding compliance for sepsis
measures at Eagle Creek Hospital. From the dashboard regarding compliance of performing
the prescribed measures and procedures, the two that stand out are the 70% compliance rate
on drawing blood cultures prior to administering antibiotics, and the 60% compliance rate on
administering vasopressors for those patients that require them. According to Medicare.Gov
(n.d.) the national average for meeting the Sepsis bundle guidelines is 60% and the state of
Minnesota is 57% thus indicating Eagle Creek is performing well at 84% total testing. But
higher percentages are needed to help ensure an improved quality of life for residents of
the facility.
In the case of failing to complete blood draws for cultures prior to administering broadspectrum antibiotics, this creates a risk that there will be an inability to confirm infection and the
responsible pathogen (Dellinger et al., 2013). This could result in inefficient or ineffective
interventions for helping a patient. Further, by failing to confirm infection from the start,
unnecessary and wasteful care interventions could be performed or ordered for patients.
In the case of the failure to administer vasopressors, we are truly gambling with the
lives of our patients. As the Surviving Sepsis Campaign reinforces, “vasopressor therapy is
required to sustain life and maintain perfusion in the face of life-threatening hypertensions”
(Dellinger et al., 2013). The essential nature of compliance with regard to administering this
intervention can be seen in our sample of data regarding compliance and inpatient mortality. Of
3
the four patients that required vasopressors to be administered, three received them and one
did not. The one that did not passed away. A benchmarking study that included patient data
from 2004 to 2009 found that the in-hospital mortality ranged from 14.7% to 29.9% (Gaieski et
al., 2013). Based on our sample data, Eagle Creek Hospital has a 40% mortality rate. This is
unacceptable, even in a small data sample.
Analysis of challenges in achieving acceptable performance
There are two main challenges facing the organization and the care unit primarily
responsible for care of adult patients presenting with sepsis. The first issue is that the unit was
understaffed throughout the third quarter. On a per-month average basis during the third
quarter, the unit was understaffed by 1.375 nurse workload units. This is problematic from the
standpoint that interventions may not have been performed because of the lack of appropriate
staffing. Additionally, from an ACA compliance standpoint, we have not been staffing at the
mandated benchmark for the unit. I understand that hiring additional staff poses its own
logistical and financial challenges. However, it appears that additional staffing is required for this
care unit. It is either that or we will need to start diverting patients to other care facilities, which
could compound any financial challenges already faced by our organization.
The second challenge, which is also a potential cause of sepsis interventions not being
appropriately administered, is that Eagle Creek Hospital does not have currently have a
formalized policy or practice guidelines for any of our care providers at any level of the
organization. There is an understanding that the Society of Critical Care Medicine has produced
the definitive guidelines for practice around treating adult sepsis (Society of Critical Care
Medicine, n.d.). However, there are no policies or procedures for how people within Eagle Creek
should be applying these resources to their practice. Guidelines to ensure proper ordering of
needed tests needs to be developed and enforced.
Specific target for improvement
Looking at the data in the two dashboards, it would seem that creating a plan to ensure
compliance with the five recommended sepsis interventions that we are currently tracking is the
4
best course of action with an emphasis on the administration of Vasopressors and blood
culture draws as these are the lowest areas noted on the available dashboard metrics and
have the greatest room for improvement. This recommendation is coming from both a patient
safety improvement and ethical care standpoint. Seventy-five percent of the inpatient mortality
in the sample data from the third quarter was seen in patients that did not receive the full suite
of interventions that they should have. This is unacceptable. Guidelines need to be put into
place for our care teams to follow.
Ethical and Sustainable Recommended Actions
To address this issue a training program should be designed to introduce our nurses and
doctors to the new practice guidelines. This program also needs to emphasize the importance
of compliance with performing all necessary interventions from a patient safety standpoint. The
addition of automated order protocols could help ensure timely responses to needed testing
when a diagnosis of Sepsis or suspected sepsis is entered into the system.
The facility should involve key stakeholders including the ordering providers, nurses,
laboratory personal and the I.T. department. Each department is needed to ensure the timely
ordering and completion of the core bundle testing for Sepsis. As noted by Medicaid.Gov (n.d.)
the state of MN has a 57% rate for obtaining the needed tests within the specified time frame
and Eagle Creek is currently reporting 84%, but there is still room for improvement to help
ensure the quality care and outcomes of the patients served.
Admittedly, this approach does not address our nurse staffing shortage. However, by
formalizing training and educating the staff that we do have along with having automated
ordering prompts, hopefully we can mitigate some of the staffing challenges while a solution
for them is worked out with human resources and finance.
Thank you for your time. I hope this report has addressed all of the questions you had in
mind when you sent me this data. If there needs to be further work regarding this issue, please
come see me. I would be interested in helping to shape the direction that the organization will
5
take in developing the policy and practice guidelines for ensuring proper care of patients who
are presenting sepsis symptoms.
6
References
Dellinger, R. P., Levy, M. M., Rhodes, A., Annane, D., Gerlach, H., Opal, S. M., Sevransky, J.
E., Sprung, C. L., Douglas, I. S., Jaeschke, R., Osborn, T. M., Nunnally, M. E.,
Townsend, S. R., Reinhart, K., Kleinpell, R. M., Angus, D. C., Deutschman, C. S.,
Machado, F. R., Rubenfeld, G. D., … Moreno, R., Surviving Sepsis Campaign
Guidelines Committee including the Pediatric Subgroup (2013). Surviving sepsis
campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock:
2012. Critical care medicine, 41(2), 580–637.
https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827e83af
Gaieski, D. F., Edwards, J. M., Kallan, M. J., & Carr, B. G. (2013). Benchmarking the incidence
and mortality of severe sepsis in the United States. Critical Care Medicine, 41(5), 1167–
1174. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827c09f8
Medicare.Gov (n.d.) Hospital Compare. Timely and Effective Care. Sepsis Care.
Minneapolis MN.
https://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/compare.html#cmprTab=2&cmp
rID=240080%2C240053&cmprDist=2.3%2C7.9&dist=25&loc=MINNEAPOLI
S%2C%20MN&lat=44.983334&lng=-93.26667
Society of Critical Care Medicine. (n.d.). Surviving sepsis campaign.
http://www.survivingsepsis.org/Pages/default.aspx
7
Assessment 1 Instructions:
Dashboard Benchmark
Evaluation
•
PRINT
•
Write a 4-6-page report for a senior
leader that communicates your
evaluation of current organizational
or interprofessional team
performance, with respect to
prescribed benchmarks set forth by
government laws and policies at the
local, state, and federal levels. In
addition, advocate for ethical action to
address benchmark
underperformance and explain the
potential for improving the overall
quality of care and performance, as
reflected on a performance
dashboard.
Introduction
In the era of health care reform, many
of the laws and policies set forth by
government at the local, state, and
federal levels have specific
performance benchmarks related to
care delivery outcomes that
organizations must achieve. It is
critical for organizational success that
the interprofessional care team is able
to understand reports and dashboards
that display the metrics related to
performance and compliance
benchmarks.
Maintaining standards and promoting
quality in modern health care are
crucial, not only for the care of
patients, but also for the continuing
success and financial viability of
health care organizations. In the era of
health care reform, health care leaders
must understand what quality care
entails and how quality in health care
connects to the standards set forth by
relevant federal, state, and local laws
and policies. An understanding of
relevant benchmarks that result from
these laws and policies, and how they
relate to quality care and regulatory
standards, is also vitally important.
Health care is a dynamic, complex, and
heavily regulated industry. For this
reason, you will be expected to
constantly scan the external
environment for emerging laws, new
regulations, and changing industry
standards. You may discover that as
new policies are enacted into law,
ambiguity in interpretation of various
facets of the law may occur.
Sometimes, new laws conflict with
preexisting laws and regulations, or
unexpected implementation issues
arise, which may warrant further
clarification from lawmakers. Adding
partisan politics and social media to
the mix can further complicate
understanding of the process and buyin from stakeholders.
Note: Your evaluation of dashboard
metrics for this assessment is the
foundation on which all subsequent
assessments are based. Therefore, you
must complete this assessment first.
Write a report for a senior leader that
communicates your evaluation of
current organizational or
interprofessional team performance
with respect to prescribed
benchmarks set forth by government
laws and policies at the local, state,
and federal levels. In addition,
advocate for ethical action to address
benchmark underperformance and
explain the potential for improving
the overall quality of care and
performance, as reflected on a
performance dashboard.
Review the performance dashboard
metrics, as well as relevant local, state,
and federal laws and policies.
Consider the metrics that are falling
short of the prescribed benchmarks.
Structure your report so that it will be
easy for a colleague or supervisor to
locate the information they need, and
be sure to cite the relevant health care
policies or laws when evaluating
metric performance against
established benchmarks.
Note: Remember that you can submit
all, or a portion of, your draft report
to Smarthinking for feedback, before
you submit the final version for this
assessment. If you plan on using this
free service, be mindful of the
turnaround time of 24–48 hours for
receiving feedback.
Preparation
Choose one of the following three
options for a performance dashboard
to use as the basis for your evaluation:
Option 1: Dashboard Metrics
Evaluation Simulation
Use the data presented in
the Dashboard and Health Care
Benchmark Evaluation multimedia
activity as the basis for your
evaluation.
Note: The writing that you do as part
of the simulation could serve as a
starting point to build upon for this
assessment.
Option 2: Actual Dashboard
Use an actual dashboard from a
professional practice setting for your
evaluation. If you decide to use actual
dashboard metrics, be sure to add a
brief description of the organization
and setting that includes:
The size of the facility that the
dashboard is reporting on.
• The specific type of care
delivery.
• The population diversity and
ethnicity demographics.
• The socioeconomic level of the
population served by the
organization.
Note: Ensure your data are Health
Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant.
Do not use any easily identifiable
organization or patient information.
•
Option 3: Hypothetical Dashboard
If you have a sophisticated
understanding of dashboards relevant
to your own practice, you may also
construct a hypothetical dashboard
for your evaluation. Your hypothetical
dashboard must present at least four
different metrics, at least two of which
must be underperforming the
prescribed benchmark set forth by a
federal, state, or local laws or policies.
In addition, be sure to add a brief
description of the organization and
setting that includes:
The size of the facility that the
dashboard is reporting on.
• The specific type of care
delivery.
• The population diversity and
ethnicity demographics.
• The socioeconomic level of the
population served by the
organization.
Note: Ensure your data are HIPAA
compliant. Do not use any easily
identifiable organization or patient
information.
•
Instructions
Note: Your evaluation of dashboard
metrics for this assessment is the
foundation on which all subsequent
assessments are based. Therefore, you
must complete this assessment first.
Write a report for a senior leader that
communicates your evaluation of
current organizational or
interprofessional team performance
with respect to prescribed
benchmarks set forth by government
laws and policies at the local, state,
and federal levels. In addition,
advocate for ethical action to address
benchmark underperformance and
explain the potential for improving
the overall quality of care and
performance, as reflected on a
performance dashboard.
Review the performance dashboard
metrics, as well as relevant local, state,
and federal laws and policies.
Consider the metrics that are falling
short of the prescribed benchmarks.
Structure your report so that it will be
easy for a colleague or supervisor to
locate the information they need, and
be sure to cite the relevant health care
policies or laws when evaluating
metric performance against
established benchmarks.
Requirements
The report requirements outlined
below correspond to the scoring guide
criteria, so be sure to address each
main point. Read the performancelevel descriptions for each criterion to
see how your work will be assessed.
In addition, be sure to note the
requirements for document format
and length and for supporting
evidence.
•
Evaluate dashboard metrics
associated with benchmarks set
forth by local, state, or federal
health care laws or policies.
• Which metrics are not
meeting the benchmark
for the organization?
• What are the local, state,
or federal health care
policies or laws that
establish these
benchmarks?
What conclusions can
you draw from your
evaluation?
• Are there any unknowns,
missing information,
unanswered questions,
or areas of uncertainty
where additional
information could
improve your
evaluation?
Analyze one challenge that
meeting prescribed
benchmarks can pose for a
heath care organization or
interprofessional team.
• Consider the following
examples:
â–ª Strategic direction.
â–ª Organizational
mission.
â–ª Resources.
â–ª Staffing.
â–ª Financial:
Operational and
capital funding.
â–ª Logistical
considerations:
Physical space.
â–ª Support services
(any ancillary
department that
gives support to a
specific care unit
in the
organization, such
as pharmacy,
cleaning services,
dietary, et cetera).
â–ª Cultural diversity
in the organization
and community.
•
•
Procedures and
processes.
• Address the following:
â–ª Why do the
challenges you
identified
contribute,
potentially, to
benchmark
underperformance
?
â–ª What assumptions
underlie your
conclusions?
Evaluate a benchmark
underperformance in a heath
care organization or
interprofessional team that has
the potential for greatly
improving overall quality or
performance.
• Focus on the benchmark
you chose to target for
improvement. Which
metric is
underperforming its
benchmark by the
greatest degree?
• State the benchmark
underperformance that is
the most widespread
throughout the
organization or
interprofessional team.
• State the benchmark that
affects the greatest
number of
patients. Which
benchmark affects the
greatest number of staff?
• Include how this
underperformance affect
â–ª
•
•
•
the community that the
organization serves.
• Include the greatest
opportunity to improve
the overall quality of care
or performance of the
organization or
interpersonal team and,
ultimately, to improve
patient outcomes, as you
think about the issue and
the current poor
benchmark outcomes.
Advocate for ethical action,
directed toward an appropriate
group of stakeholders, to
address a benchmark
underperformance.
• Who would be an
appropriate group of
stakeholders to act on
improving your
identified benchmark
metric?
• Why should the
stakeholder group take
action?
• What are some ethical
actions the stakeholder
group could take that
support improved
benchmark
performance?
Organize content so ideas flow
logically with smooth
transitions.
• Proofread your report,
before you submit it, to
minimize errors that
could distract readers
and make it more
difficult for them to focus
on the substance of your
evaluation and analysis.
• Support main points,
assertions, arguments,
conclusions, or
recommendations with relevant
and credible evidence.
• Be sure to apply correct
APA formatting to source
citations and references.
Example Assessment: You may use
the following to give you an idea of
what a Proficient or higher rating on
the scoring guide would look like:
• Assessment 1 Example [PDF].
Report Format and Length
Format your report using APA style.
•
•
Use the APA Style Paper
Template [DOCX]. An APA Style
Paper Tutorial [DOCX] is also
provided to help you in writing
and formatting your report. Be
sure to include:
•
A title page and
references page. An
abstract is not required.
• A running head on all
pages.
• Appropriate section
headings.
Be sure your report is 4–6
pages in length, not including
the title page and references
page.
Supporting Evidence
Cite 4–6 credible sources from peerreviewed journals or professional
industry publications to support your
analysis of challenges, evaluation of
potential for improvement, and your
advocacy for ethical action.
Note: Faculty may use the Writing
Feedback Tool when grading this
assessment. The Writing Feedback
Tool is designed to provide you with
guidance and resources to develop
your writing based on five core skills.
You will find writing feedback in the
Scoring Guide for the assessment,
once your work has been evaluated.
Portfolio Prompt: You may choose to
save your report to your ePortfolio.
Competencies
Measured
By successfully completing this
assessment, you will demonstrate
your proficiency in the course
competencies through the following
assessment scoring guide criteria:
•
•
Competency 1: Analyze relevant
health care laws, policies, and
regulations; their application;
and their effects on
organizations, interprofessional
teams, and professional
practice.
• Analyze challenges that
meeting prescribed
benchmarks can pose for
a heath care organization
or interprofessional
team.
Competency 2: Lead the
development and
implementation of ethical and
•
•
culturally sensitive policies that
improve health outcomes for
individuals, organizations, and
populations.
• Advocate for ethical
action, directed toward
an appropriate group of
stakeholders, to address
a benchmark
underperformance.
Competency 3: Evaluate
relevant indicators of
performance, such as
benchmarks, research, and best
practices, to inform health care
laws and policies for patients,
organizations, and populations.
• Evaluate dashboard
metrics associated with
benchmarks set forth by
local, state, or federal
health care laws or
policies.
• Evaluate a benchmark
underperformance in a
heath care organization
or interprofessional team
that has the potential for
greatly improving overall
quality or performance.
Competency 5: Produce clear,
coherent, and professional
written work, in accordance
with Capella’s writing
standards.
• Organize content so ideas
flow logically with
smooth transitions.
• Support main points,
assertions, arguments,
conclusions, or
recommendations with
relevant and credible
evidence.
•
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation Scoring Guide
CRITERIA
NONPERFORMANC
E
BASIC
PROFICIENT
DISTINGUISH
ED
Evaluate
dashboard
metrics
associated
with
benchmarks
set forth by
local, state, or
federal health
care laws or
policies.
Does not
evaluate
dashboard
metrics
associated
with
benchmarks
set forth by
local, state, or
federal health
care laws or
policies.
Evaluates
dashboard
metrics not
clearly
associated
with
benchmarks
set forth by
local, state, or
federal health
care laws or
policies,
leading to
unsubstantiate
d conclusions
about
organizational
performance.
Evaluates
dashboard
metrics
associated
with
benchmarks
set forth by
local, state, or
federal health
care laws or
policies.
Provides an
objective,
accurate
evaluation of
dashboard
metrics
associated
with
benchmarks
set forth by
local, state, or
federal health
care laws or
policies.
Clearly
articulates
organizational
performance
shortfalls and
any gaps in
information
affecting the
evaluation.
Analyze
challenges that
meeting
prescribed
benchmarks
can pose for a
heath care
organization
or
Does not
identify
challenges that
meeting
prescribed
benchmarks
can pose for a
heath care
organization
or
interprofession
al team.
Identifies
challenges that
meeting
prescribed
benchmarks
can pose for a
heath care
organization
or
interprofession
al team.
Analyzes
challenges that
meeting
prescribed
benchmarks
can pose for a
heath care
organization
or
interprofession
al team.
Analyzes
challenges that
meeting
prescribed
benchmarks
can pose for a
heath care
organization
or
interprofession
al team.
Identifies clear
implications of
CRITERIA
NONPERFORMANC
E
BASIC
PROFICIENT
DISTINGUISH
ED
such
challenges for
the
organization
or team and
acknowledges
assumptions
underlying the
analysis.
interprofession
al team.
Evaluate a
benchmark
underperforma
nce in a heath
care
organization
or
interprofession
al team that
has the
potential for
greatly
improving
overall quality
or
performance.
Does not
evaluate a
benchmark
underperforma
nce in a heath
care
organization
or
interprofession
al team that
has the
potential for
greatly
improving
overall quality
or
performance.
Conducts an
evaluation of a
benchmark
underperforma
nce in a heath
care
organization
or
interprofession
al team that
misinterprets
or overlooks
factors that are
key to a clear
understanding
the potential
for improving
overall quality
or
performance
Evaluates a
benchmark
underperforma
nce in a heath
care
organization
or
interprofession
al team that
has the
potential for
greatly
improving
overall quality
or
performance.
Evaluates a
benchmark
underperforma
nce in a heath
care
organization
or
interprofession
al team that
has the
potential for
greatly
improving
overall quality
or
performance.
Provides a
compelling
and fully
substantiated
argument for
the chosen
benchmark’s
potential
impact on
quality of
performance.
Advocate for
ethical action,
Does not
advocate for
ethical action
Advocates for
ethical action
to address a
Advocates for
ethical action,
directed
Advocates for
ethical action,
directed
CRITERIA
NONPERFORMANC
E
BASIC
PROFICIENT
DISTINGUISH
ED
directed
toward an
appropriate
group of
stakeholders,
to address a
benchmark
underperforma
nce.
to address a
benchmark
underperforma
nce.
benchmark
underperforma
nce.
toward an
appropriate
group of
stakeholders,
to address a
benchmark
underperforma
nce.
toward an
appropriate
group of
stakeholders,
to address a
benchmark
underperforma
nce. Argues
effectively for
recommended
actions
underscored
by a clear and
perceptive
explanation of
the ethical
principles that
guide such
actions.
Organize
content so
ideas flow
logically with
smooth
transitions.
Does not
organize
content for
ideas to flow
logically with
smooth
transitions.
Organizes
content with
some logical
flow and
smooth
transitions.
Organizes
content so
ideas flow
logically with
smooth
transitions.
Organizes
content so
clarity is
enhanced and
all ideas flow
logically with
smooth
transitions.
Support main
points,
assertions,
arguments,
conclusions, or
recommendati
ons with
relevant and
credible
evidence.
Does not
support main
points,
assertions,
arguments,
conclusions, or
recommendati
ons with
relevant and
credible
evidence.
Sources lack
relevance or
credibility, or
the evidence is
not persuasive
or explicitly
supportive of
main points,
assertions,
arguments,
conclusions, or
Supports main
points,
assertions,
arguments,
conclusions, or
recommendati
ons with
relevant and
credible
evidence.
Supports main
points,
assertions,
arguments,
conclusions, or
recommendati
ons with
relevant,
credible, and
convincing
evidence.
Skillfully
CRITERIA
NONPERFORMANC
E
BASIC
recommendati
ons.
DISTINGUISH
ED
PROFICIENT
combines
virtually errorfree source
citations with
a perceptive
and coherent
synthesis of
the evidence.
Dashboard and Health Care Benchmark Evaluation
Dashboard and Health Care Benchmark Evaluation
Dashboards and other reports can provide
crucial information about how well an
organization is meeting ben Dashboard and
Health Care Benchmark Evaluation
Dashboards and other reports can provide
crucial information about how well an
organization is meeting benchmarks set by local,
state, and federal laws and policies. Healthcare
organizations need to be able to use this
information to determine the most effective
strategies for quality and performance
improvement. This activity asks you to review a
diabetes dashboard and fact sheet used by
Mercy Medical Center, a Vila Health affiliated
hospital, and determine where the organization
is falling short.
Shakopee
Demographics
Age Group
Race
t by l
Shakopee Ledger
—Top
Workplaces 2020 & 2021
2010
ocal, state, and federal laws and policies.
Healthcare or
ganizations need to be abl
e to use this information to determine the
most effective strategies for quality and
performance improvement. This activity asks
you to review a diabetes dashboard and fact
sheet used by Mercy Medical Center, a Vila
Health affiliated hospital, and determine
where the organization is falling Public Health
Dashboard – Diabetes
Eye Exam
rt.
BEGIN ACTIVITY
Foot Exam
HgbA1c
2020 Patients by Race
2020 Patients by Age
2020 Patients by
Gender
Dashboard Metrics Evaluation Example Note: The dashboards and data presented in this example
assignment are made up. Do not use them in developing your own report. They’re provided only as
examples of how data could be formatted and referred to when you create your report. The first section
of this example shows two dashboards containing metrics that the evaluation is based upon. Be sure to
reference the data from the Dashboard and Health Care Benchmark Evaluation simulation in your
evaluation. The second section is the evaluation of the data presented in the metrics and represents
proficient-level work for all of the criteria in the scoring guide

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

  
error: Content is protected !!