need to develop the new policy or update existing policy from workplace or public domain, this assignment is divided in 2 parts. Particularly, for this assignment we just need to do part 1 which is selecting one policy related to aged care and reviewing or critiquing that policy based on relevant literature. Generally, 1st part is policy critique and later 2nd part will be update of that policy.
Microsoft Word - SNPG956 Assessment task 2 Policy Critique and Policy Document Guidelines_spring .docx SNPG956 Assessment Task 2: Policy Critique & Policy Document Part one: overview (introduction and impact of the policy to older people (250 word) and literature review (550 word) and attached policy document -20% Part two: action plan, consultation and implementation (950 word) and attached policy document — 40% The Task The overall purpose of the assessment is to develop a new policy or update an existing policy, from your workplace or the public domain, which impacts on the potential for older people to engage actively and meaningfully in their community. An accompanying report is required to support the development to the new or updated policy. Requirements The report should include: • A clear statement explaining the background of the health policy that is being reviewed (part 1) • A brief overview of the policy and how it impacts on the health of older people (part 1) • A review of the evidence base focused on informing successful implementation of the policy in practice (i.e. real-world implications) (part 1) • Consultation with consumers and colleagues to develop a new policy or update an existing policy (part 2) • Action plan (template provided at Moodle site) (part 2) • Recommendations about how to measure the successful implementation of new or updated policy (part 2) • Conclusion (part 2) Submission The report and the new or updated policy document should be submitted as one (1) PDF document via the Turnitin submission point in Moodle by the date described in the SNPG956 subject outline. The new or updated policy document should be attached as an appendix to your report. Turnitin Turnitin is a tool for checking if your work has unreferenced content. You can submit your assessment task to Turnitin prior to the due date and Turnitin will give you an originality report. You can then make any changes that may be required and re-submit your final version by the due date. Subject Learning Outcomes 1. Critically analyse contemporary healthcare issues relevant to older people 2. Describe the policies that impact the health of older people Communicate healthcare issues to a general audience 3. Revise existing policy using research evidence from academic and nonacademic sources to justify change Tips Several example policies are included in a folder called “Example Policies” in the Moodle site for you to look at. You do not have to use these, but may wish to build upon/update them as part of this assessment task. For other tips see the separate “Assessment Task 2: Suggested Structure” in Moodle. 2 | SNPG956 ASSESSMENT TASK 2: POLICY CRITIQUE & POLICY DOCUMENT Structure of Assessment Task Two PART ONE WORD COUNT RUNNUNG TOTAL Introduction(aim,backgroundcontextand summarystatementofcontent) Withaclearstatementexplainingthebackground ofthehealthpolicythatisbeingreviewed 100 100 Evaluation of the impact of the policy to older people Abriefoverviewofthepolicyandhowitimpacts onthehealthofolderpeople 150 250 Literaturereview:Evidencebaseaboutclinical topictobefocusedonpolicy 550 800 PART TWO Consultation with consumers and colleagues to developanewpolicyorupdateanexistingpolicy 300 300 Actionplan(templateprovidedatMoodlesite) 300 600 Evaluation and Recommendations about how to measurethesuccessfulimplementationofnewor updatedpolicy 200 800 Conclusion(2mainhighlights/leanings) 150 950 *One paragraph/ 250 words Microsoft Word - ass 2 part one_marking criteria 2020_spring .docx SNPG 956 ASSESSMENT TASK TWO (PART ONE) MARKING CRITERIA Criterion Absent (0) Developing (2-3) Fair (4-5) Excellent (6-8) Exemplary (9-10) Provide a brief overview of chosen policy and the impact on older people (20%) Policy documentation is not submitted Brief overview of chosen policy and the impact on older people is not submitted Policy choice is irrelevant, inappropriate, or does not impact older populations. and limited details are provided as to how it will impact older populations The policy chosen is appropriate and there is a good level of detail describing how it will impact older populations. An extensive description of the policy and its impact on older populations is provided. An extensive description of the policy and its impact on older populations is provided. Evidence Use of Supporting Evidence (20%) supporting evidence is of poor quality or irrelevant to the review or development of new policy. and/or supporting evidence is out of date and/or evidence is inappropriate for an academic/professional setting or is mostly anecdotal. Supporting evidence presented is limited to the prescribed texts and readings for the subject (academic and governmental/NGO). Some discussion points are not supported by evidence from the literature. Evidence supporting the need for a change of policy is mostly absent or difficult to discern. Epidemiological data is not cited to support or provide context to the discussion of reviewing or developing new policy. Supporting evidence comes from a broad range of sources but there may be an over reliance on non-peer-reviewed literature (e.g. Government/NGO reports) or on only one type of source (e.g. systemic literature reviews). More of a balance could be struck. Most discussion points are supported by evidence from the literature. Evidence supporting the need for a change of policy is presented mostly clearly. Epidemiological data is used to support or provide support to the discussion of reviewing or developing new policy, but its use is limited. Supporting evidence comes from a good range of sources. There is an appropriate mix of peer- reviewed (e.g. consensus papers, synthesised reviews), Cochrane Collaboration, and government/NGO-type reports. All discussion points are supported by evidence from the literature. Evidence supporting the need for a change of policy is presented clearly. Epidemiological data is used to support or provide support to the discussion of reviewing or developing new policy. Supporting evidence demonstrates a critical and efficient appraisal of the literature drawing on and justifying the use of multiple sources (e.g. chapters from the prescribed texts, peer- reviewed publications, governmental policy documents and reports, NGO reports etc.). Each point is supported by at least one (1) example or piece of evidence from the literature. Use of evidence shows an exemplary understanding the policy context and why a change of policy is needed. Epidemiological data provides support for the policy change and demonstrates an exemplary understanding of the ‘size’ of the issue and its impact on older people. SNPG 956 ASSESSMENT TASK TWO (PART ONE) MARKING CRITERIA Critical Analysis Selection and use of the literature (20%) no analysis of relevant academic literature or professional literature supporting the review or development of policy. and/or no comparisons made using, or identified in the academic literature/professional literature and/or no critique of current policy identifying why there is a need for new policy, or a change is provided and/or an absent (or poor) self-reflection on the role that you played in enabling a policy development. A basic analysis of the academic literature is present and provides details on the methodology of the studies cited (e.g. qualitative and quantitative). A basic description of the literature search strategy employed is provided. A limited comparison is made using or identified in the academic/professional literature. A basic critique of a current policy is provided identifying the need for a new policy or change. A basic reflection on the role you played in reviewing or developing a new policy is included. An appropriate analysis of the academic and/or professional literature is present and provides information on methodology and methods (e.g. surveys and interviews) employed, and the validity of the studies examined. The literature search strategy used is described appropriately. Comparisons of different aspects of policy modalities discussed in the literature are provided, but with limited supporting evidence. Current policy is critiqued appropriately and clearly identifies the need for new policy or change. Self-reflection is present and describes your role in reviewing or developing a new policy. An appropriate analysis of the academic and professional literature is present and provides information on methodology and methods employed, validity, and context (Geographical location, sites where research was undertaken) of the studies examined. The literature search strategy used is clearly described. Critical comparisons of different aspects of policy modalities/arguments are presented. This is supported by appropriate evidence. Current policy is critiqued robustly and identifies the need for new policy or change. Self-reflection critically describes your role in reviewing or developing new policy. A high-quality analysis of the academic and professional literature is present. Includes information on the methodology, methods, validity, context, and population/sample sizes of the studies examined. The analysis also includes specific details on statistically significant quantitative findings and qualitative themes found in the literature. The literature search used is clearly and succinctly described, demonstrating an appropriate understanding of search strategies. Critical comparisons of different aspects of policy are presented. Discussion presents the dis/advantages of arguments present in the literature. This is supported by strong evidence. Current policy is critiqued in an exemplary fashion, identifying the need for new policy or change Self-reflection is critical and provides insightful evidence as to the role you played in reviewing or developing a new policy. SNPG 956 ASSESSMENT TASK TWO (PART ONE) MARKING CRITERIA Synthesis Integration of ideas from different sources (20%) Policy documentation is not submitted and/or a coherent view point/opinion is not established and/or isn’t based on evidence from across a broad range of sources. and/or over-reliance on one study for evidence, or one kind of study (e.g. only looking at small scale