Description
Hello I need help with a paper that has already been write. I have attached the preparation and information word documents to help understand what the paper was about. Also the grading tool any where you see basic it where the comment are needs to fix so I can be graded at proficient or distinguished.
NHS-FP6004_MillsSamantha_Assessment- this the paper with comments of things that need to be change. Please use this one to make the changes and attach this when completed. Please highlight your changes.
Please let me know if you need help.
Overview:
Review the performance dashboard for a health care organization, as well as relevant local,
state, and federal laws and policies. Then, write a report for senior leaders in the organization
that communicates your analysis and evaluation of the current state of organizational
performance, including a recommended metric to target for improvement.
Note: Each assessment in this course builds on the work you completed in the previous
assessment. Therefore, you must complete the assessments in this course in the order in which
they are presented.
In the era of health care reform, many of the laws and policies set 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. This assessment offers an opportunity for you to demonstrate and
sharpen your ability to analyze, interpret, and evaluate performance dashboard metrics.
By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following
course competencies and assessment criteria:
•
•
•
•
Competency 1: Analyze the effects of health care policies, laws, and regulations on organizations,
interprofessional teams, and personal practice.
• Analyze challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care
organization or an interprofessional team.
Competency 3: Lead the development and implementation of ethical and culturally sensitive
policies that improve health outcomes for individuals, organizations, and populations.
• Advocate for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed
toward an appropriate group of stakeholders.
Competency 4: Evaluate relevant indicators of performance, such as benchmarks, research, and
best practices, for health care policies and law for patients, organizations, and populations.
• Evaluate dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal
health care policies or laws.
• Evaluate a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an
interprofessional team that has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or
performance.
Competency 6: Apply various methods of communicating with policy makers, stakeholders,
colleagues, and patients to ensure that communication in a given situation is professional, clear,
efficient, and effective.
• Communicate evaluation and analysis in a professional and effective manner,
writing content clearly and logically, with correct use of grammar, punctuation, and
spelling.
• Integrate relevant sources to support arguments, correctly formatting citations and
references using current APA style.
Questions to Consider
As you prepare to complete this assessment, you may want to think about other related issues
to deepen your understanding or broaden your viewpoint. You are encouraged to consider the
questions below and discuss them with a fellow learner, a work associate, an interested friend
or family member, or a member of your professional community. Note that these questions are
for your own development and exploration and do not need to be completed or submitted as
part of your assessment.
•
•
What local, state, or federal health care policies or laws set benchmarks and standards reflected in
performance dashboards common in your professional area of practice?
What are the potential challenges or opportunities for health care organizations or
interprofessional teams in meeting prescribed performance benchmarks and standards? Factors
you might consider include the organization’s mission, its size and resources, operational policies
and procedures, and the population the organization serves.
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
NHS-FP6004
u01a1 – Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
Learner: Samantha , Mills
OVERALL COMMENTS
Samantha:
Thank you for your submission of Assessment 1, attempt 2. I appreciate that you made improvements, especially in
correcting the grammatical errors and awkward wording. However, you still do not clearly address low performing
benchmarks with accurate data. You need to discuss challenges of improving documentation errors. You address
diversity but how is diversity related to improving documentation errors? Ethical actions need to address the
documentation errors and not diversity. You still need to review APA formatting.
See my comments in the paper and on the scoring guide. Please highlight your changes in a different color. This
first assessment is the basis for the future assessments. This first assessment can be challenging and I am not sure
if you fully understand what is being asked. Each assessment in this course builds on previous assessments so it is
imperative that learners have a good understanding of the expectations.
Please contact me or the tutor for assistance. We are here to support you and want you to succeed in this course.
Dr. Ryan
RUBRICS
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
1/7
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
CRITERIA 1
(20%)
Evaluate dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health
care policies or laws.
COMPETENCY
Evaluate relevant indicators of performance, such as benchmarks, research, and best practices, for health
care policies and law for patients, organizations, and populations.
NON_PERFORMANCE:
Does not analyze dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health care
policies or laws.
BASIC:
Analyzes dashboard metrics, but relationship to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health care
policies or laws is missing or flawed.
PROFICIENT:
Evaluates dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health care policies or
laws.
DISTINGUISHED:
Evaluates dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health care policies or
laws, and identifies knowledge gaps, unknowns, missing information, unanswered questions, or areas of
uncertainty (where further information could improve the evaluation).
Comments:
You still need to evaluate actual dashboard metrics by comparing Mercy Medical Center’s data with other
local, state or national benchmarks.
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
2/7
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
CRITERIA 2
(16%)
Analyze challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care
organization or an interprofessional team.
COMPETENCY
Analyze the effects of health care policies, laws, and regulations on organizations, interprofessional teams,
and personal practice.
NON_PERFORMANCE:
Does not list challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care organization or an
interprofessional team.
BASIC:
Lists but does not analyze challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care
organization or an interprofessional team, or provides a flawed analysis that misses key challenges.
PROFICIENT:
Analyzes challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care organization or an
interprofessional team.
DISTINGUISHED:
Analyzes challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care organization or an
interprofessional team, and identifies assumptions on which the analysis is based.
Comments:
Previous: You discuss demographics for the county in Minnesota but you don’t discuss how these
demographics can pose challenges in meeting the benchmarks. You briefly mention staffing. How do age, and
cultural diversity affect the documentation errors?
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
3/7
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
CRITERIA 3
(16%)
Evaluate a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an
interprofessional team that has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or
performance.
COMPETENCY
Evaluate relevant indicators of performance, such as benchmarks, research, and best practices, for health
care policies and law for patients, organizations, and populations.
NON_PERFORMANCE:
Does not evaluate a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an interprofessional team
that has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or performance.
BASIC:
Provides a partial or flawed evaluation of a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or
an interprofessional team; misses factors that are key to understanding the potential for improving overall
quality or performance.
PROFICIENT:
Evaluates a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an interprofessional team that
has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or performance.
DISTINGUISHED:
Evaluates a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an interprofessional team that
has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or performance, and defends reasoning for selecting
this benchmark over another with similar potential for improvement.
Comments:
You provide data for documentation errors for the Bariatric and Orthopedic services for 2016 and 2017 which
do not correlate with the source. How can documentation be improved and what are the repercussions if
documentation is not improved?
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
4/7
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
CRITERIA 4
(16%)
Advocate for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed toward
an appropriate group of stakeholders.
COMPETENCY
Lead the development and implementation of ethical and culturally sensitive policies that improve health
outcomes for individuals, organizations, and populations.
NON_PERFORMANCE:
Does not advocate for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed toward an
appropriate group of stakeholders.
BASIC:
Attempts to advocate for ethical action but attempt is flawed, superficial, or does not address an
appropriate group of stakeholders.
PROFICIENT:
Advocates for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed toward an appropriate
group of stakeholders.
DISTINGUISHED:
Advocates for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed at an appropriate group
of stakeholders, and recommends criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of recommended action.
Comments:
Previous: You discuss diversity but what this criteria is asking is for ethical actions in addressing the low
performing benchmark of documentation, not diversity.
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
5/7
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
CRITERIA 5
(16%)
Communicate evaluation and analysis in a professional and effective manner, writing
content clearly and logically, with correct use of grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
COMPETENCY
Apply various methods of communicating with policy makers, stakeholders, colleagues, and patients to ensure
that communication in a given situation is professional, clear, efficient, and effective.
NON_PERFORMANCE:
Does not communicate evaluation and analysis findings and recommendations in a professional and
effective manner; does not write content clearly and logically, and does not use correct grammar,
punctuation, and spelling.
BASIC:
Communicates evaluation and analysis findings and recommendations that are not consistently
professional, effective, clear, and logical, or that contain errors in use of grammar, punctuation, or spelling
that distract from the message.
PROFICIENT:
Communicates evaluation and analysis in a professional and effective manner, writing content clearly and
logically, with correct use of grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
DISTINGUISHED:
Communicates evaluation and analysis findings and recommendations that are professional, effective, and
insightful; the content is clear, logical, and persuasive; and grammar, punctuation, and spelling are without
errors.
Comments:
Good job in correcting the grammatical errors and awkward wording.
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
6/7
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
CRITERIA 6
(16%)
Integrate relevant sources to support arguments, correctly formatting citations and
references using current APA style.
COMPETENCY
Apply various methods of communicating with policy makers, stakeholders, colleagues, and patients to ensure
that communication in a given situation is professional, clear, efficient, and effective.
NON_PERFORMANCE:
Does not integrate relevant sources to support arguments; does not correctly format citations and references
using current APA style.
BASIC:
Cites sources that lack relevance or integrates them poorly, or formats citations or references incorrectly.
PROFICIENT:
Integrates relevant sources to support arguments, correctly formatting citations and references using current
APA style.
DISTINGUISHED:
Integrates relevant sources to support arguments, correctly formatting citations and references using current
APA style. Citations are free from all errors.
Comments:
You provide relevant sources to support most of your discussions but there are still some facts and assertions
that are not supported with evidence. You also need to review APA for running heads, citations and
references.
APA central link http://apastylecentral.apa.org.library.capella.edu/
APA citing a website http://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/APACitation/website.asp
Academic Writer link: https://academicwriter-apa-org.library.capella.edu/
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
7/7
Running head: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
Samantha Mills
Capella University
NHS-FP6004
04/26/2019
Evaluation of the Dashboard and the Healthcare
1
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
There is every kind of essence for healthcare organizations to come up with
benchmarking means as this would effectively improve their services (Blouin, 2017). The
primary role of the benchmarks is that they provide visual interpretations and plans on how the
organizations would improve their services and facilities. It means that through the data provided
by the benchmarks, it would be possible for the firms to carry out analyses and seek ways of
improving their firms. Through benchmarking, the organizations are provided with a platform for
analyzing their internal data, local, international, while at the same time comparing them with
other facilities (Exchange, 2018). At the end of the process, the facility would have gained much
in terms of what they are supposed to improve. According to Blouin (2017), benchmarking is a
process that involves measuring the internal process of an organization, then identifying,
analyzing, understanding, and adapting to the outstanding practices as carried out by the other
organizations.
A performance dashboard is described as a layered system of data delivery system, which
is presented in a single screen, while at the same time providing the most critical information
(Blouin, 2017). Through the performance dashboard, the organizations can formulate strategic
objectives about their facilities (Blouin, 2017). With this, the managers can quickly identify,
measure, monitor, and then manage their performance more effectively. The end product of this
is that there would be an effective system of management that has accumulated knowledge from
different aspects, hence incorporating them into their system.
There are professional healthcare professions who have been explicitly used
benchmarking metrics to improve their facilities. An excellent example of this is Mercy Medical
Center. The organization has critically made use of the benchmarks, whose purpose is to evaluate
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
the errors, the demographics, readmission, and patient safety (Exchange, 2018). By getting this
knowledge as instructed at Mercy Medical Center, it would be able to come up with an even
more enhanced organization than before. The benchmarks are equally to be compared at both the
national levels and the local levels. It should be noted that for healthcare organizations to
enhance efficiency in service delivery, they should strive to ensure that they compete both
locally and nationally. It is impossible for an organization to enhance efficiency if they keep their
levels down at the local levels alone (Blouin, 2017). This paper analyses the benchmarks metrics
of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) dashboards at the Mercy Medical Center. The evaluation
also includes the challenges involved in the same and the underperformance that has been
witnessed over a long period. Above all, the report tries to highlight strategies on how such
issues could be addressed adequately.
Benchmarks as Structured by the Local, State, or the Federal Healthcare Policies
The Joint Commission stipulates that the primary roles of the dashboards are to focus
more on the quality and safety, while at the same time documenting the risk management trends,
and the severe safety events within the facility (Exchange, 2018). The risk management trends
and patterns should be given among the priorities given that most of the work within the facility
touches on the safety of the patients. The safety of the patients should always come as a first
priority. Other factors that the dashboard should address include the staffing issue and critically,
the quality of services offered by the organization (Health, 2018).
At Mercy Medical Center, the organization has come up with meaningful metrics that
ensure the organization has met all the highlighted factors, from patient’s safety to the quality of
healthcare that is provided. According to Mercy Medical Center, quality is the most critical thing
when it comes to patient care. If a facility were not able to take care of the quality that they offer,
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
at the end of it, they would have failed the patients as far as matters of healthcare are concerned.
In this regard, Mercy Medical Center saw the need to develop a benchmark that critically
illustrated to show both the local and national readmission rates for COPD, heart failure, and
pneumonia (Ghazisaeidi & Safdari et al., 2015).
The organization was keen in establishing and analyzing the failures within its setting,
medication errors, documentation errors, and the patient injuries that had not been addressed
before. It is arguably correct that with this in place, it becomes elementary to deal with the
mistakes and rectify them. Minnesota’s Local Public Health Act stipulates that the local
government and the state are responsible in dealing with health care issues (Blouin, 2017). Both
the state and local government should come up with better ways that would enhance service
delivery at the healthcare centers. With that in place, they would have developed better means of
providing even better services to their patients. The local government and the state are both
responsible for coming up with accountability schemes for the funding of initiatives, developing,
and initiating guidelines that would aid in assessing and planning of appropriate healthcare
within the state (Dreachslin & Maldonado et al., 2017). They should also come up with means
that would develop documented progress towards the achievement of statewide objectives and
goals. After all, these are done, the two should come up with an assigned oversight body to
commission the healthcare system within the state or the entire country.
Benchmarking Challenges
In any given organization metrics, it is expected that several challenges may occur. The
three primary problems that are expected within the setting of an organization include age
diversity, cultural diversity, and proper documentation (Exchange, 2018). Although such
challenges could be solved easily with the best measures being put in place, the first step should
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
always be its identification. Once the problems have been identified within the setting of a
healthcare facility, there should be a means to ensure that everything goes in the right direction.
The demographics of the county where the medical center is situated contributes highly to the
challenges that the healthcare facility faces (Dreachslin & Maldonado., 2017). Located in Scott
County Minnesota, Mercy Medical Center has consequently been facing several challenges
which in one way or the other they try to address. As of 2018, the county had a population of
159,678, out of the total population of the state which is 5,457,173 (Rutherford, Provost, &
Kotagal et al., 2017). It should be noted that this is one of the counties in the United States where
racial diversity is not much felt.
The entire population is made up of 82.9% of non-Hispanic white people. Additionally,
285 of the whole community are below the age of 18 (Dreachslin & Maldonado., 2017). The
demographics of the county, which includes the size and the total population have in one way, or
the other contributed to the challenges faced by the county facility. Staffing i/s also another issue
that should be observed keenly by both the state and local government.
Benchmarking and Underperformance
Within the documentation, it is apparent that the facility has great potential to be
improved. As per the documentation made, specific significant changes were made to enhance
the number of errors that had occurred previously (Exchange, 2018). To rectify or adjust the kind
of failures experienced earlier on, it was necessary that individuals try to analyze and look for a
way to make changes. However, within the departments of Bariatric and Orthopedic services, the
number of failures significantly increased between 2016 and 2017. The percentage increment
was from 20% in 2016 to 28% in 2017 (Dreachslin, Weech-Maldonado et al., 2017). However,
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
the underperformance can be solved if the management came up with standard measures that
seek to upgrade the facility. The benchmark could be improved by planning and implementing it
with an internal data that is reliable. The existing data should equally be analyzed in the best way
possible to come up with the best results (Blouin, 2017). To achieve a hospital-wide patient flow,
there should be an ultimate improvement in the patient care experience at the hospital. This
requires the hospital’s appreciation as an interdependent and interconnected system of care.
Ethical Actions for Improvement of the Benchmark Underperformance
To improve the cultural and age diversity, some of the most critical factors required
includes improving the underperformance. As highlighted, the diversity of the county is a
primary factor that contributes to the challenges that face the healthcare facility. It means that to
solve such issues, the management should look at the solution from the scope of the diversity of
the county. Items such as staffing are to be addressed to come up with amicable solutions over
the same. Equally, there should be action plan implemented that would ensure more diversity has
been improved to the best levels, while at the same time enhancing cultural competence within
the setting of the organization (Blouin, 2017). If there is no diversity in the country, the best way
would be enhancing different kind of trainings to the workers, aimed at bringing awareness over
the same. Additionally, expanding the market and the outreach of the community would be a
great way of dealing with the challenge of age diversity and cultural underperformance within
the setting of the organization.
Conclusion
The benchmarks evaluations at Mercy Medical Center have not only been effective but
efficient in ensuring that the standards of the health organization have been improved. By
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
following most of the recommendations provided by the benchmark, it would be easier to come
up with an effective plan over the same. Although the medical center has been performing well
according to the parameter, certain things need to be effected to make it even more efficient. By
eliminating the errors and failures as addressed by the benchmark, the hospital would have
developed much capacity as far as the performance is concerned.
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
References
Blouin, A. S. (2017). High-Reliability Healthcare. Retrieved from The Joint Commission:
https://www.jointcommission.org/leadership_blog/how_engaged_is_your_board/
Dreachslin, J., Weech-Maldonado, R., Jordan, L., Gail, J., & Epané, J. P. (2017). Blueprint for
Sustainable Change in Diversity Management and Cultural Competence: Lessons from
the National Center for Healthcare Leadership Diversity Demonstration Project. Journal
of Healthcare Management, 171-185.
Exchange., T. B. (2018). What is benchmarking? Retrieved from The Benchmarking Exchange:
http://www.benchnet.com/wib.htm
Ghazisaeidi, M., Safdari, R., Torabi, M., Mirzaee, M., Farzi, J., & Goodini, A. (2015).
Development of Performance Dashboards in the Healthcarneed to follow APA for title.e
Sector: Key Practical Issues. Acta Informatica Medica, 317-321.
Health, M. D. (2018). Local Public Health Act. Minnesota Department of Health:
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/opi/gov/lphact/
Rutherford, P., Provost, L., Kotagal, U., Luther, K., & Anderson, A. (2017). Achieving Hospitalwide Patient Flow. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Retrieved from
http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/IHIWhitePapers/Achieving-Hospital-wide-PatientFlow.aspx
PREPARATION
For this assessment, you may choose one of the following three options for a performance
dashboard to use as the basis for your benchmark evaluation.
Option 1: Dashboard and Health Care Benchmark
Evaluation Simulation
If you decide to use the simulation dashboard for your evaluation, review the dashboard, as well as
relevant local, state, and federal laws and policies. Consider the metrics within the dashboard that
are falling short of prescribed benchmarks.
Option 2: Actual Dashboard From a Professional Practice
Setting
If you choose an actual dashboard from a professional practice setting for your evaluation, 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 that your data is Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
compliant. Do not use any easily identifiable organization or patient information.
Option 3: Hypothetical Dashboard Based on a
Professional Practice Setting
If you have a sophisticated understanding of dashboards that are relevant to your own practice, you
may also construct a hypothetical dashboard for your evaluation based on that setting. Your
hypothetical dashboard must present at least four different metrics, at least two of which must be
underperforming the relevant 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 that your data is HIPAA compliant. Do not use any easily identifiable organization or
patient information.
REPORT REQUIREMENTS
Structure your report in such a way that it would be easy for a colleague or supervisor to locate the
information they need. Be sure to cite relevant local, state, or federal health care laws or policies
when evaluating metric performance against prescribed benchmarks. Cite an additional 2–4 credible
sources to support your analysis and evaluation of the challenges in meeting the benchmarks, the
potential for performance improvement, and your advocacy for ethical action.
Note: The tasks outlined below correspond to grading criteria in the scoring guide.
In your report, be sure to:
•
•
•
•
Evaluate dashboard metrics against the benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health
care laws or policies.
o Which metrics are below the mandated benchmarks in the organization? Evaluate
weaknesses within the entire set of benchmarks.
o What are the local, state, or federal health care laws or policies that set these
benchmarks?
Analyze challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for the organization or for
an interprofessional team.
o What are the specific challenges or opportunities that the organization or
interprofessional team might have in meeting the benchmarks? For example,
consider:
▪ The strategic direction of the organization.
▪ The organization’s mission.
▪ Available resources:
▪ Staffing.
▪ Operational and capital funding.
▪ Physical space.
▪ Support services (any ancillary department that supports a specific
care unit in the organization, such as a pharmacy, cleaning services,
and dietary services).
▪ Cultural diversity in the organization.
▪ Cultural diversity in the community.
▪ Organizational processes and procedures.
o How might these challenges be contributing to benchmark underperformance?
Evaluate a benchmark underperformance in the organization or interprofessional team that
has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or performance.
o Which metric is underperforming its benchmark by the greatest degree?
o Which benchmark underperformance is the most widespread throughout the
organization or interprofessional team?
o Which benchmark affects the greatest number of patients?
o Which benchmark affects the greatest number of staff?
o How does this underperformance affect the community the organization serves?
o Where is the greatest opportunity for improvement in the overall quality or
performance of the organization or interpersonal team—and ultimately in patient
outcomes?
Advocate for ethical action in addressing the benchmark underperformance that has the
potential for greatly improving overall quality or performance.
o At which group of stakeholders should your advocacy be directed? Which group
could be expected to take the appropriate action to improve the benchmark metric?
o
•
•
What are some ethical actions that the stakeholder group could take that support
improved benchmark performance?
o Why should the stakeholder group take action?
Communicate your findings and recommendations in a professional and effective manner.
o Ensure that your report is well organized and easy to read.
o Write clearly and logically, using correct grammar, punctuation, and mechanics.
Integrate relevant sources to support your arguments, correctly formatting source citations
and references using current APA style.
o Did you cite relevant local, state, or federal health care laws or policies when
discussing the mandated benchmarks?
o Did you cite an additional 2–4 credible sources to support your analysis, evaluation,
and advocacy?
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Review the performance dashboard for a health care organization, as well as relevant local,
state, and federal laws and policies. Then, write a report for senior leaders in the organization
that communicates your analysis and evaluation of the current state of organizational
performance, including a recommended metric to target for improvement.
Note: Each assessment in this course builds on the work you completed in the previous
assessment. Therefore, you must complete the assessments in this course in the order in which
they are presented.
In the era of health care reform, many of the laws and policies set 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. This assessment offers an opportunity for you to demonstrate and
sharpen your ability to analyze, interpret, and evaluate performance dashboard metrics.
By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following
course competencies and assessment criteria:
•
•
•
•
Competency 1: Analyze the effects of health care policies, laws, and regulations on organizations,
interprofessional teams, and personal practice.
• Analyze challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care
organization or an interprofessional team.
Competency 3: Lead the development and implementation of ethical and culturally sensitive
policies that improve health outcomes for individuals, organizations, and populations.
• Advocate for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed
toward an appropriate group of stakeholders.
Competency 4: Evaluate relevant indicators of performance, such as benchmarks, research, and
best practices, for health care policies and law for patients, organizations, and populations.
• Evaluate dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal
health care policies or laws.
• Evaluate a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an
interprofessional team that has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or
performance.
Competency 6: Apply various methods of communicating with policy makers, stakeholders,
colleagues, and patients to ensure that communication in a given situation is professional, clear,
efficient, and effective.
• Communicate evaluation and analysis in a professional and effective manner,
writing content clearly and logically, with correct use of grammar, punctuation, and
spelling.
• Integrate relevant sources to support arguments, correctly formatting citations and
references using current APA style.
Questions to Consider
As you prepare to complete this assessment, you may want to think about other related issues
to deepen your understanding or broaden your viewpoint. You are encouraged to consider the
questions below and discuss them with a fellow learner, a work associate, an interested friend
or family member, or a member of your professional community. Note that these questions are
for your own development and exploration and do not need to be completed or submitted as
part of your assessment.
•
•
What local, state, or federal health care policies or laws set benchmarks and standards reflected in
performance dashboards common in your professional area of practice?
What are the potential challenges or opportunities for health care organizations or
interprofessional teams in meeting prescribed performance benchmarks and standards? Factors
you might consider include the organization’s mission, its size and resources, operational policies
and procedures, and the population the organization serves.
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
NHS-FP6004
u01a1 – Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
Learner: Samantha , Mills
OVERALL COMMENTS
Samantha:
Thank you for your submission of Assessment 1, attempt 2. I appreciate that you made improvements, especially in
correcting the grammatical errors and awkward wording. However, you still do not clearly address low performing
benchmarks with accurate data. You need to discuss challenges of improving documentation errors. You address
diversity but how is diversity related to improving documentation errors? Ethical actions need to address the
documentation errors and not diversity. You still need to review APA formatting.
See my comments in the paper and on the scoring guide. Please highlight your changes in a different color. This
first assessment is the basis for the future assessments. This first assessment can be challenging and I am not sure
if you fully understand what is being asked. Each assessment in this course builds on previous assessments so it is
imperative that learners have a good understanding of the expectations.
Please contact me or the tutor for assistance. We are here to support you and want you to succeed in this course.
Dr. Ryan
RUBRICS
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
1/7
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
CRITERIA 1
(20%)
Evaluate dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health
care policies or laws.
COMPETENCY
Evaluate relevant indicators of performance, such as benchmarks, research, and best practices, for health
care policies and law for patients, organizations, and populations.
NON_PERFORMANCE:
Does not analyze dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health care
policies or laws.
BASIC:
Analyzes dashboard metrics, but relationship to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health care
policies or laws is missing or flawed.
PROFICIENT:
Evaluates dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health care policies or
laws.
DISTINGUISHED:
Evaluates dashboard metrics with regard to benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health care policies or
laws, and identifies knowledge gaps, unknowns, missing information, unanswered questions, or areas of
uncertainty (where further information could improve the evaluation).
Comments:
You still need to evaluate actual dashboard metrics by comparing Mercy Medical Center’s data with other
local, state or national benchmarks.
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
2/7
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
CRITERIA 2
(16%)
Analyze challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care
organization or an interprofessional team.
COMPETENCY
Analyze the effects of health care policies, laws, and regulations on organizations, interprofessional teams,
and personal practice.
NON_PERFORMANCE:
Does not list challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care organization or an
interprofessional team.
BASIC:
Lists but does not analyze challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care
organization or an interprofessional team, or provides a flawed analysis that misses key challenges.
PROFICIENT:
Analyzes challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care organization or an
interprofessional team.
DISTINGUISHED:
Analyzes challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for a heath care organization or an
interprofessional team, and identifies assumptions on which the analysis is based.
Comments:
Previous: You discuss demographics for the county in Minnesota but you don’t discuss how these
demographics can pose challenges in meeting the benchmarks. You briefly mention staffing. How do age, and
cultural diversity affect the documentation errors?
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
3/7
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
CRITERIA 3
(16%)
Evaluate a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an
interprofessional team that has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or
performance.
COMPETENCY
Evaluate relevant indicators of performance, such as benchmarks, research, and best practices, for health
care policies and law for patients, organizations, and populations.
NON_PERFORMANCE:
Does not evaluate a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an interprofessional team
that has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or performance.
BASIC:
Provides a partial or flawed evaluation of a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or
an interprofessional team; misses factors that are key to understanding the potential for improving overall
quality or performance.
PROFICIENT:
Evaluates a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an interprofessional team that
has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or performance.
DISTINGUISHED:
Evaluates a benchmark underperformance in a heath care organization or an interprofessional team that
has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or performance, and defends reasoning for selecting
this benchmark over another with similar potential for improvement.
Comments:
You provide data for documentation errors for the Bariatric and Orthopedic services for 2016 and 2017 which
do not correlate with the source. How can documentation be improved and what are the repercussions if
documentation is not improved?
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
4/7
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
CRITERIA 4
(16%)
Advocate for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed toward
an appropriate group of stakeholders.
COMPETENCY
Lead the development and implementation of ethical and culturally sensitive policies that improve health
outcomes for individuals, organizations, and populations.
NON_PERFORMANCE:
Does not advocate for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed toward an
appropriate group of stakeholders.
BASIC:
Attempts to advocate for ethical action but attempt is flawed, superficial, or does not address an
appropriate group of stakeholders.
PROFICIENT:
Advocates for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed toward an appropriate
group of stakeholders.
DISTINGUISHED:
Advocates for ethical action in addressing a benchmark underperformance, directed at an appropriate group
of stakeholders, and recommends criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of recommended action.
Comments:
Previous: You discuss diversity but what this criteria is asking is for ethical actions in addressing the low
performing benchmark of documentation, not diversity.
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
5/7
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
CRITERIA 5
(16%)
Communicate evaluation and analysis in a professional and effective manner, writing
content clearly and logically, with correct use of grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
COMPETENCY
Apply various methods of communicating with policy makers, stakeholders, colleagues, and patients to ensure
that communication in a given situation is professional, clear, efficient, and effective.
NON_PERFORMANCE:
Does not communicate evaluation and analysis findings and recommendations in a professional and
effective manner; does not write content clearly and logically, and does not use correct grammar,
punctuation, and spelling.
BASIC:
Communicates evaluation and analysis findings and recommendations that are not consistently
professional, effective, clear, and logical, or that contain errors in use of grammar, punctuation, or spelling
that distract from the message.
PROFICIENT:
Communicates evaluation and analysis in a professional and effective manner, writing content clearly and
logically, with correct use of grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
DISTINGUISHED:
Communicates evaluation and analysis findings and recommendations that are professional, effective, and
insightful; the content is clear, logical, and persuasive; and grammar, punctuation, and spelling are without
errors.
Comments:
Good job in correcting the grammatical errors and awkward wording.
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
6/7
4/29/2019
Capella University Scoring Guide Tool
CRITERIA 6
(16%)
Integrate relevant sources to support arguments, correctly formatting citations and
references using current APA style.
COMPETENCY
Apply various methods of communicating with policy makers, stakeholders, colleagues, and patients to ensure
that communication in a given situation is professional, clear, efficient, and effective.
NON_PERFORMANCE:
Does not integrate relevant sources to support arguments; does not correctly format citations and references
using current APA style.
BASIC:
Cites sources that lack relevance or integrates them poorly, or formats citations or references incorrectly.
PROFICIENT:
Integrates relevant sources to support arguments, correctly formatting citations and references using current
APA style.
DISTINGUISHED:
Integrates relevant sources to support arguments, correctly formatting citations and references using current
APA style. Citations are free from all errors.
Comments:
You provide relevant sources to support most of your discussions but there are still some facts and assertions
that are not supported with evidence. You also need to review APA for running heads, citations and
references.
APA central link http://apastylecentral.apa.org.library.capella.edu/
APA citing a website http://media.capella.edu/CourseMedia/APACitation/website.asp
Academic Writer link: https://academicwriter-apa-org.library.capella.edu/
https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails
7/7
Running head: Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
Samantha Mills
Capella University
NHS-FP6004
04/26/2019
Evaluation of the Dashboard and the Healthcare
1
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
There is every kind of essence for healthcare organizations to come up with
benchmarking means as this would effectively improve their services (Blouin, 2017). The
primary role of the benchmarks is that they provide visual interpretations and plans on how the
organizations would improve their services and facilities. It means that through the data provided
by the benchmarks, it would be possible for the firms to carry out analyses and seek ways of
improving their firms. Through benchmarking, the organizations are provided with a platform for
analyzing their internal data, local, international, while at the same time comparing them with
other facilities (Exchange, 2018). At the end of the process, the facility would have gained much
in terms of what they are supposed to improve. According to Blouin (2017), benchmarking is a
process that involves measuring the internal process of an organization, then identifying,
analyzing, understanding, and adapting to the outstanding practices as carried out by the other
organizations.
A performance dashboard is described as a layered system of data delivery system, which
is presented in a single screen, while at the same time providing the most critical information
(Blouin, 2017). Through the performance dashboard, the organizations can formulate strategic
objectives about their facilities (Blouin, 2017). With this, the managers can quickly identify,
measure, monitor, and then manage their performance more effectively. The end product of this
is that there would be an effective system of management that has accumulated knowledge from
different aspects, hence incorporating them into their system.
There are professional healthcare professions who have been explicitly used
benchmarking metrics to improve their facilities. An excellent example of this is Mercy Medical
Center. The organization has critically made use of the benchmarks, whose purpose is to evaluate
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
the errors, the demographics, readmission, and patient safety (Exchange, 2018). By getting this
knowledge as instructed at Mercy Medical Center, it would be able to come up with an even
more enhanced organization than before. The benchmarks are equally to be compared at both the
national levels and the local levels. It should be noted that for healthcare organizations to
enhance efficiency in service delivery, they should strive to ensure that they compete both
locally and nationally. It is impossible for an organization to enhance efficiency if they keep their
levels down at the local levels alone (Blouin, 2017). This paper analyses the benchmarks metrics
of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) dashboards at the Mercy Medical Center. The evaluation
also includes the challenges involved in the same and the underperformance that has been
witnessed over a long period. Above all, the report tries to highlight strategies on how such
issues could be addressed adequately.
Benchmarks as Structured by the Local, State, or the Federal Healthcare Policies
The Joint Commission stipulates that the primary roles of the dashboards are to focus
more on the quality and safety, while at the same time documenting the risk management trends,
and the severe safety events within the facility (Exchange, 2018). The risk management trends
and patterns should be given among the priorities given that most of the work within the facility
touches on the safety of the patients. The safety of the patients should always come as a first
priority. Other factors that the dashboard should address include the staffing issue and critically,
the quality of services offered by the organization (Health, 2018).
At Mercy Medical Center, the organization has come up with meaningful metrics that
ensure the organization has met all the highlighted factors, from patient’s safety to the quality of
healthcare that is provided. According to Mercy Medical Center, quality is the most critical thing
when it comes to patient care. If a facility were not able to take care of the quality that they offer,
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
at the end of it, they would have failed the patients as far as matters of healthcare are concerned.
In this regard, Mercy Medical Center saw the need to develop a benchmark that critically
illustrated to show both the local and national readmission rates for COPD, heart failure, and
pneumonia (Ghazisaeidi & Safdari et al., 2015).
The organization was keen in establishing and analyzing the failures within its setting,
medication errors, documentation errors, and the patient injuries that had not been addressed
before. It is arguably correct that with this in place, it becomes elementary to deal with the
mistakes and rectify them. Minnesota’s Local Public Health Act stipulates that the local
government and the state are responsible in dealing with health care issues (Blouin, 2017). Both
the state and local government should come up with better ways that would enhance service
delivery at the healthcare centers. With that in place, they would have developed better means of
providing even better services to their patients. The local government and the state are both
responsible for coming up with accountability schemes for the funding of initiatives, developing,
and initiating guidelines that would aid in assessing and planning of appropriate healthcare
within the state (Dreachslin & Maldonado et al., 2017). They should also come up with means
that would develop documented progress towards the achievement of statewide objectives and
goals. After all, these are done, the two should come up with an assigned oversight body to
commission the healthcare system within the state or the entire country.
Benchmarking Challenges
In any given organization metrics, it is expected that several challenges may occur. The
three primary problems that are expected within the setting of an organization include age
diversity, cultural diversity, and proper documentation (Exchange, 2018). Although such
challenges could be solved easily with the best measures being put in place, the first step should
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
always be its identification. Once the problems have been identified within the setting of a
healthcare facility, there should be a means to ensure that everything goes in the right direction.
The demographics of the county where the medical center is situated contributes highly to the
challenges that the healthcare facility faces (Dreachslin & Maldonado., 2017). Located in Scott
County Minnesota, Mercy Medical Center has consequently been facing several challenges
which in one way or the other they try to address. As of 2018, the county had a population of
159,678, out of the total population of the state which is 5,457,173 (Rutherford, Provost, &
Kotagal et al., 2017). It should be noted that this is one of the counties in the United States where
racial diversity is not much felt.
The entire population is made up of 82.9% of non-Hispanic white people. Additionally,
285 of the whole community are below the age of 18 (Dreachslin & Maldonado., 2017). The
demographics of the county, which includes the size and the total population have in one way, or
the other contributed to the challenges faced by the county facility. Staffing i/s also another issue
that should be observed keenly by both the state and local government.
Benchmarking and Underperformance
Within the documentation, it is apparent that the facility has great potential to be
improved. As per the documentation made, specific significant changes were made to enhance
the number of errors that had occurred previously (Exchange, 2018). To rectify or adjust the kind
of failures experienced earlier on, it was necessary that individuals try to analyze and look for a
way to make changes. However, within the departments of Bariatric and Orthopedic services, the
number of failures significantly increased between 2016 and 2017. The percentage increment
was from 20% in 2016 to 28% in 2017 (Dreachslin, Weech-Maldonado et al., 2017). However,
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
the underperformance can be solved if the management came up with standard measures that
seek to upgrade the facility. The benchmark could be improved by planning and implementing it
with an internal data that is reliable. The existing data should equally be analyzed in the best way
possible to come up with the best results (Blouin, 2017). To achieve a hospital-wide patient flow,
there should be an ultimate improvement in the patient care experience at the hospital. This
requires the hospital’s appreciation as an interdependent and interconnected system of care.
Ethical Actions for Improvement of the Benchmark Underperformance
To improve the cultural and age diversity, some of the most critical factors required
includes improving the underperformance. As highlighted, the diversity of the county is a
primary factor that contributes to the challenges that face the healthcare facility. It means that to
solve such issues, the management should look at the solution from the scope of the diversity of
the county. Items such as staffing are to be addressed to come up with amicable solutions over
the same. Equally, there should be action plan implemented that would ensure more diversity has
been improved to the best levels, while at the same time enhancing cultural competence within
the setting of the organization (Blouin, 2017). If there is no diversity in the country, the best way
would be enhancing different kind of trainings to the workers, aimed at bringing awareness over
the same. Additionally, expanding the market and the outreach of the community would be a
great way of dealing with the challenge of age diversity and cultural underperformance within
the setting of the organization.
Conclusion
The benchmarks evaluations at Mercy Medical Center have not only been effective but
efficient in ensuring that the standards of the health organization have been improved. By
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
following most of the recommendations provided by the benchmark, it would be easier to come
up with an effective plan over the same. Although the medical center has been performing well
according to the parameter, certain things need to be effected to make it even more efficient. By
eliminating the errors and failures as addressed by the benchmark, the hospital would have
developed much capacity as far as the performance is concerned.
Dashboard Benchmark Evaluation
8
References
Blouin, A. S. (2017). High-Reliability Healthcare. Retrieved from The Joint Commission:
https://www.jointcommission.org/leadership_blog/how_engaged_is_your_board/
Dreachslin, J., Weech-Maldonado, R., Jordan, L., Gail, J., & Epané, J. P. (2017). Blueprint for
Sustainable Change in Diversity Management and Cultural Competence: Lessons from
the National Center for Healthcare Leadership Diversity Demonstration Project. Journal
of Healthcare Management, 171-185.
Exchange., T. B. (2018). What is benchmarking? Retrieved from The Benchmarking Exchange:
http://www.benchnet.com/wib.htm
Ghazisaeidi, M., Safdari, R., Torabi, M., Mirzaee, M., Farzi, J., & Goodini, A. (2015).
Development of Performance Dashboards in the Healthcarneed to follow APA for title.e
Sector: Key Practical Issues. Acta Informatica Medica, 317-321.
Health, M. D. (2018). Local Public Health Act. Minnesota Department of Health:
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/opi/gov/lphact/
Rutherford, P., Provost, L., Kotagal, U., Luther, K., & Anderson, A. (2017). Achieving Hospitalwide Patient Flow. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Retrieved from
http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/IHIWhitePapers/Achieving-Hospital-wide-PatientFlow.aspx
PREPARATION
For this assessment, you may choose one of the following three options for a performance
dashboard to use as the basis for your benchmark evaluation.
Option 1: Dashboard and Health Care Benchmark
Evaluation Simulation
If you decide to use the simulation dashboard for your evaluation, review the dashboard, as well as
relevant local, state, and federal laws and policies. Consider the metrics within the dashboard that
are falling short of prescribed benchmarks.
Option 2: Actual Dashboard From a Professional Practice
Setting
If you choose an actual dashboard from a professional practice setting for your evaluation, 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 that your data is Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
compliant. Do not use any easily identifiable organization or patient information.
Option 3: Hypothetical Dashboard Based on a
Professional Practice Setting
If you have a sophisticated understanding of dashboards that are relevant to your own practice, you
may also construct a hypothetical dashboard for your evaluation based on that setting. Your
hypothetical dashboard must present at least four different metrics, at least two of which must be
underperforming the relevant 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 that your data is HIPAA compliant. Do not use any easily identifiable organization or
patient information.
REPORT REQUIREMENTS
Structure your report in such a way that it would be easy for a colleague or supervisor to locate the
information they need. Be sure to cite relevant local, state, or federal health care laws or policies
when evaluating metric performance against prescribed benchmarks. Cite an additional 2–4 credible
sources to support your analysis and evaluation of the challenges in meeting the benchmarks, the
potential for performance improvement, and your advocacy for ethical action.
Note: The tasks outlined below correspond to grading criteria in the scoring guide.
In your report, be sure to:
•
•
•
•
Evaluate dashboard metrics against the benchmarks set by local, state, or federal health
care laws or policies.
o Which metrics are below the mandated benchmarks in the organization? Evaluate
weaknesses within the entire set of benchmarks.
o What are the local, state, or federal health care laws or policies that set these
benchmarks?
Analyze challenges that meeting prescribed benchmarks can pose for the organization or for
an interprofessional team.
o What are the specific challenges or opportunities that the organization or
interprofessional team might have in meeting the benchmarks? For example,
consider:
▪ The strategic direction of the organization.
▪ The organization’s mission.
▪ Available resources:
▪ Staffing.
▪ Operational and capital funding.
▪ Physical space.
▪ Support services (any ancillary department that supports a specific
care unit in the organization, such as a pharmacy, cleaning services,
and dietary services).
▪ Cultural diversity in the organization.
▪ Cultural diversity in the community.
▪ Organizational processes and procedures.
o How might these challenges be contributing to benchmark underperformance?
Evaluate a benchmark underperformance in the organization or interprofessional team that
has the potential for greatly improving overall quality or performance.
o Which metric is underperforming its benchmark by the greatest degree?
o Which benchmark underperformance is the most widespread throughout the
organization or interprofessional team?
o Which benchmark affects the greatest number of patients?
o Which benchmark affects the greatest number of staff?
o How does this underperformance affect the community the organization serves?
o Where is the greatest opportunity for improvement in the overall quality or
performance of the organization or interpersonal team—and ultimately in patient
outcomes?
Advocate for ethical action in addressing the benchmark underperformance that has the
potential for greatly improving overall quality or performance.
o At which group of stakeholders should your advocacy be directed? Which group
could be expected to take the appropriate action to improve the benchmark metric?
o
•
•
What are some ethical actions that the stakeholder group could take that support
improved benchmark performance?
o Why should the stakeholder group take action?
Communicate your findings and recommendations in a professional and effective manner.
o Ensure that your report is well organized and easy to read.
o Write clearly and logically, using correct grammar, punctuation, and mechanics.
Integrate relevant sources to support your arguments, correctly formatting source citations
and references using current APA style.
o Did you cite relevant local, state, or federal health care laws or policies when
discussing the mandated benchmarks?
o Did you cite an additional 2–4 credible sources to support your analysis, evaluation,
and advocacy?
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Categories: