Course Code DNP-805 Class Code DNP-805-O503 Criteria Content Percentage 70.0% Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) Used to Design a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) 15.0% Proposed CDSS Embedded in the EHR 15.0% Proposed CDSS Design Links a Specific Medication Through the CPOE 5.0% Discussion of Specific Details of Clinical Issue Involving the Selected Medication 5.0% Discussion of the Rationale Behind the Design Development 5.0% Description of How Proposed CDSS Will Be Implemented and Adopted by Fellow Clinicians 10.0% Explanation of How Patient Outcomes Will Be Measured 5.0% Assessment of Challenges and Proposed Solutions Which Might Apply to Scenario 10.0% Organization & Effectiveness 20.0% Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0% Argument Logic and Construction 8.0% Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Format 10.0% Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0% Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Total Weightage 100% Using CPOE and CDSS Unsatisfactory (0.00%) CPOE was not used to design a CDSS. Proposed CDSS is not embedded in the EHR. Proposed CDSS design does not link a specific medication through the CPOE. Discussion of specific details of the clinical issue involving the selected medication is not present. A discussion of the rationale behind the design development is not present. Does not describe how the proposed CDSS will be implemented and adopted by fellow clinicians. Does not provide an explanation of how patient outcomes will be measured. Does not provide an assessment of challenges and proposed solutions which might apply to this scenario. Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Sources are not documented. 100.0 Less than Satisfactory (74.00%) CPOE was used to design a CDSS but use is marginal or incomplete. Proposed CDSS is embedded in the EHR but use is marginal or incomplete. Proposed CDSS design links a specific medication through the CPOE but effort is marginal or incomplete. Discussion of specific details of the clinical issue involving the selected medication is present but incomplete. A discussion of the rationale behind the design development is present but incomplete. A description of how the proposed CDSS will be implemented and adopted by fellow clinicians is present but incomplete. Provides an explanation of how patient outcomes will be measured but explanation is incomplete. Provides an assessment of challenges and proposed solutions which might apply to this scenario, but elements are missing or incomplete. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Satisfactory (79.00%) CPOE was used to design a CDSS but used at a perfunctory level. Proposed CDSS is embedded in the EHR but at a perfunctory level. Proposed CDSS design links a specific medication through the CPOE but at a perfunctory level. Discussion of specific details of the clinical issue involving the selected medication is present but rendered at a perfunctory level. A discussion of the rationale behind the design development is present but rendered at a perfunctory level. A description of how the proposed CDSS will be implemented and adopted by fellow clinicians is present but rendered at a perfunctory level. Provides an explanation how patient outcomes will be measured but explanation is rendered at a perfunctory level. Provides an assessment of challenges and proposed solutions which might apply to this scenario, but assessment is rendered at a perfunctory level. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Good (87.00%) CPOE was used to design a CDSS in full. Discussion is convincing. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources. Proposed CDSS is embedded in the EHR in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources. Proposed CDSS design links a specific medication through the CPOE in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources. Discussion of specific details of the clinical issue involving the selected medication is convincing and thorough. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources. A discussion of the rationale behind the design development is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources. A description of how the proposed CDSS will be implemented and adopted by fellow clinicians is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources. Provides an explanation how patient outcomes will be measured in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources. An assessment of challenges and proposed solutions which might apply to this scenario is clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Information presented is from scholarly though dated sources. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Excellent (100.00%) CPOE was used to design a CDSS in full. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. Proposed CDSS is embedded in the EHR in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. Proposed CDSS design links a specific medication through the CPOE in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. Discussion of specific details of the clinical issue involving the selected medication is convincing and thorough. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. A discussion of the rationale behind the design development is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. A description of how the proposed CDSS will be implemented and adopted by fellow clinicians is present in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. Comments Provides an explanation how patient outcomes will be measured in full. Discussion is convincing and defines specific elements. Discussion is insightful and forward-thinking. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. An assessment of challenges and proposed solutions which might apply to this scenario is clearly presented and thorough. Discussion is insightful, forward-thinking, and detailed. Information presented is from current scholarly sources. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. All format elements are correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Points Earned 
Purchase answer to see full attachment