2- Ethical Issues In Healthcare System

HCM 440 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric
Overview
Healthcare administrators, managers, and executives are responsible for planning, directing, and coordinating health services at various levels for the
populations they serve. Interpreting research is integral to the role of a healthcare professional, especially when conducting a needs assessment for program
planning.
In this course, you will choose a clinical area of interest related to healthcare administration and create an annotated bibliography. For your final assessment,
you will compose an integrated review. In this review, you will discuss the criteria necessary for inclusion or exclusion in the research study, critique the quality
of each study, and present a synthesis of the results.
This integrated review will address the following course outcomes:
1. Critique ethical issues in healthcare research for their influence on compliance with rules and regulations
2. Evaluate basic research strategies applicable to healthcare settings for informing research proposals
3. Assess the appropriateness of utilizing secondary databases in healthcare research as an alternative to conducting original research
4. Justify the selection of specific data analysis methodology in published healthcare research for informing healthcare research methodology
5. Select healthcare administration issues to research in validating the need for program evaluation
Prompt
Using the six peer-reviewed literature articles from your annotated bibliography, compose an integrated review that focuses on a clinical issue of interest.
Ensure that the topic of this integrated review is viewed from the perspective of a healthcare professional who is looking to validate the need for program
evaluation at your hospital, even if your annotated bibliography was not this focused.
Specifically, your integrated review should focus on the following critical elements:
I. Abstract
Craft a well-drafted abstract. Be sure to adhere to the guidelines from the latest edition of the American Psychological Association’s style guide. Consider
the appropriate length for your audience.
II. Introduction
a) State the purpose, aims, or objectives of the integrated review. What do you wish to achieve through the drafting of this review? Be explicit in
your answer.
b) Introduce the topic of interest. Why is this topic the focus of the review?
c) What is the research question you are going to focus on? If you were to prepare a research proposal, what would your hypothesis be? Why?
d) What variables are of interest to you? How will these variables help you throughout this integrated review? Be sure to label the types of
variables each of these are.
e) Discuss the background and significance of the problem to healthcare administration.

III. Literature Search
a) What keywords and combinations were used in the initial search? Which were the most effective? Explain why these keywords and
combinations provided the most useful results.
b) Which databases were searched? Why were these the chosen databases? Assess the characteristics that make these databases the most
reliable.
c) Evaluate the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the sample. How did you decide to narrow the search and focus the review? How was the final
sample determined? Be sure to include your process.
IV. Methodology Analysis
a) What methodology was used in this research? Was it effective for the research question and hypothesis? Why or why not? Consider including
improvements for the methodology.
b) What statistical data analyses were employed in these articles? Were they appropriate for the research question and methodology? Why or
why not?
c) Evaluate the literature for any gaps that exist. Why do you think these gaps exist? Consider factors such as the location of the research, time the
research was conducted, and so on.
d) Evaluate the literature for inconsistencies that exist across the studies. Why do you think these inconsistencies exist? Consider factors such as
the location of the research, time the research was conducted, and so on.
V. Synthesis and Interpretation
a) Create an evidence table of your results. Be sure to include the following criteria for each study:
1. Report citation
2. Design
3. Method
4. Sample
5. Data collection
6. Data analysis
7. Validity and reliability
b) Compare and contrast the study findings. Be sure to include pertinent conclusions and statistical findings only.
c) Evaluate the research strategies used in the articles, as applicable to healthcare programs. Was the research design appropriate for the study
conducted? Was the statistical analysis employed the best choice for the research questions posed?
d) What ethical issues are pertinent specifically to healthcare research? How can these issues influence the research strategies chosen to
investigate clinical topics? Evaluate these research articles and consider how ethical concerns may have limited these clinical investigations.
e) What patterns and trends exist in the research? What generalizations can you draw from the research?
f) If secondary data was utilized, was the source biased or objective? Why? If original research was conducted, do you think the researchers were
biased or objective? Why? Be sure to support your answer.

g) Synthesize the main findings of the research articles. What were the hypotheses of the research studies? Did the research add any new scholarly
information to the existing body of knowledge?
h) Assess whether utilizing secondary data as an alternative to the researchers’ original research would have been a feasible option. If it had been
an option, what resource(s) would be the most appropriate to use? What would be some of the strengths and limitations of using secondary
data?
i) Assess the literature for any ethical concerns that may be present. Consider things such as conflicts of interest between the researcher and the
study sponsors, or the lack of an IRB approval for the study.
VI. Conclusion
a) What are the studies’ strengths? Are there patterns in the articles that you chose regarding their strengths?
b) What are the studies’ limitations? Are there patterns in the articles that you chose regarding their limitations?
c) Were the findings and conclusions reliable and valid? Why or why not? Logically support your answers.
d) What are the implications of this research? How will it influence your topic in the overall large picture of healthcare research?
Milestones
Annotated Bibliography
This milestone is due in Module Four. Submit a summary and analysis of six research articles relevant to the research problem that you have chosen. This
milestone is graded with the Annotated Bibliography Rubric.
Integrated Review
The final project is due in Module Eight. Using the six peer-reviewed literature articles from your annotated bibliography, compose an integrated review that
focuses on a clinical issue of interest. Ensure that the topic of this integrated review is viewed from the perspective of a healthcare professional who is looking to
validate the need for program evaluation at your hospital. Remember to use APA format. This final project is graded with the Final Project Rubric.

Final Project Rubric
Guidelines for Submission: Submit the integrated review as one complete document, including the title page, abstract, written components, references, and any
necessary appendices. The written components of the review (excluding the title page, abstract, references, and appendices) should not exceed 12 pages,
double-spaced, with one-inch margins. Be sure to adhere to formatting guidelines from the latest edition of the American Psychological Association (APA)
reference manual.
Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value
Abstract Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
abstract is appropriate in length
for reader’s audience
Crafts well-drafted abstract,
adhering to guidelines from the
latest edition of the APA style
guide
Crafts abstract, but abstract is
not well drafted or does not
adhere to guidelines from the
latest edition of the APA style
guide
Does not craft abstract 2.5
Introduction:
Purpose
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
purpose, aims, or objectives
demonstrate a keen
understanding of the integrated
review process
Explicitly states the purpose,
aims, or objectives of the
integrated review
States the purpose, aims, or
objectives of the integrated
review, but is not explicit in
doing so
Does not state the purpose,
aims, or objectives of the
integrated review
3.8
Introduction: Topic Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
explanation is explicitly clear
Explains why the topic is the
focus of the review
Explains why the topic is the
focus of the review, but
explanation is cursory or weak
Does not explain why the topic is
the focus of the review
3.8
Introduction:
Research Question
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
research question demonstrates
depth of understanding of
chosen topic
Introduces the research question
and hypothesis, including
explanation behind hypothesis
Introduces the research question
and hypothesis, including
explanation behind hypothesis,
but explanation is illogical,
cursory, or weak
Does not introduce the research
question and hypothesis
3.8
Introduction:
Variables
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
chosen variables of interest
reflect true understanding of
chosen topic of interest
Explains labeled variables of
interest, including how these
variables will be of help
throughout the integrated
review
Explains variables of interest, but
variables are not labeled and
explanation of how variables will
help throughout integrated
review is illogical or weak
Does not explain variables of
interest
3.8
Introduction:
Background
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
discussion logically links research
question to healthcare
administration
Discusses the background of the
problem and significance of the
problem to healthcare
administration
Discusses the background of the
problem and discusses
significance of the problem, but
discussion is not thorough or
does not relate significance to
healthcare administration
Does not discuss the background
of the problem and significance
of the problem to healthcare
administration
3.8
Literature Search:
Keywords and
Combinations
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
explanation for most useful
keywords and combinations
demonstrates a nuanced
understanding of research
databases
Evaluates which keywords and
combinations used in the initial
search provided the most useful
results, including an explanation
for why this is true
Evaluates which keywords and
combinations provided the most
useful results, including an
explanation for why this is true,
but evaluation is not limited to
initial search, or explanation for
why this is true is illogical, weak,
or cursory
Does not evaluate which
keywords and combinations used
in the initial search provided the
most useful results
3.8
Literature Search:
Databases
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
assessment of characteristics
shows keen insight into reliability
of research databases
Assesses which databases were
chosen and what characteristics
make them the most reliable
Assesses which databases were
chosen and what characteristics
make them the most reliable,
but assessment is illogical, weak,
or not comprehensive
Does not assess which databases
were chosen and what
characteristics make them the
most reliable
3.8
Literature Search:
Inclusion and
Exclusion
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
process of determining inclusion
or exclusion demonstrates ability
to logically evaluate research
Comprehensively evaluates the
inclusion and exclusion criteria
for the sample
Evaluates the inclusion and
exclusion criteria for the sample,
but evaluation is not
comprehensive
Does not evaluate the inclusion
and exclusion criteria for the
sample
3.8
Methodology
Analysis:
Methodology
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
includes improvements for
methodology
Logically evaluates the efficacy of
methodology used in the
research articles
Evaluates the efficacy of
methodology used in the
research, but evaluation is
illogical
Does not evaluate the efficacy of
methodology used in the
research
3.8
Methodology:
Statistical Data
Analyses
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
explanations for appropriateness
of data analyses demonstrate a
nuanced understanding of
statistical techniques
Logically evaluates the
appropriateness of the statistical
data analyses used in the
research articles
Evaluates the appropriateness of
the statistical data analyses used
in the research articles but the
evaluation is not logically sound
Does not evaluate the
appropriateness of the statistical
data analyses used in the
research articles
3.8
Methodology: Gaps Meets “Proficient” criteria and
possible explanations for gaps in
literature take into consideration
factors such as location and time
Comprehensively evaluates the
literature for any gaps that exist,
including possible explanations
for those gaps
Evaluates the literature for any
gaps that exist, including possible
explanations for those gaps, but
evaluation is not comprehensive
or explanations are illogical or
weak
Does not evaluate the literature
for any gaps that exist
3.8
Methodology:
Inconsistencies
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
possible explanations for
inconsistencies that exist across
the studies take into
consideration factors such as
location and time
Comprehensively evaluates the
literature for any inconsistencies
that exist across the studies,
including possible explanations
for those inconsistencies
Evaluates the literature for any
inconsistencies that exist across
the studies, including possible
explanations for those
inconsistencies, but evaluation is
not comprehensive or
explanations are illogical or weak
Does not evaluate the literature
for any inconsistencies that exist
across the studies
3.8
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Evidence Table
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
evidence table of results is
organized and visually appealing
Creates a comprehensive
evidence table of results
Creates an evidence table of
results, but does not include all
required components
Does not create an evidence
table of results
3.8
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Compare and
Contrast
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
comparisons and contrasts of
study findings include only
significant conclusions and
statistically significant findings
Compares and contrasts the
study findings, including
pertinent conclusions and
statistical findings only
Compares and contrasts the
study findings, but includes
superfluous information
Does not compare and contrast
the study findings
3.8
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Research Strategies
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
evaluation is focused on the
appropriateness of the research
strategies within healthcare
programs
Comprehensively evaluates
research strategies used in the
articles as applicable to a
healthcare program
Evaluates research strategies
used in the articles, but research
strategies do not apply to
healthcare programs or
evaluation is not comprehensive
Does not evaluate research
strategies used in the articles
3.8
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Ethical Issues
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
evaluation considers how ethical
concerns may have limited
clinical investigations specifically
in the chosen clinical topic
Evaluates research articles for
how possible ethical concerns
may have limited clinical
investigations
Evaluates research articles for
how possible ethical concerns
may have limited clinical
investigations, but evaluation is
limited, illogical, or weak
Does not evaluate research
articles for how possible ethical
concerns may have limited
clinical investigations
3.8
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Patterns and Trends
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
analysis demonstrates nuanced
ability to interpret research
findings
Analyzes patterns and trends in
the research, drawing
generalizations from these
patterns and trends
Analyzes patterns and trends in
the research and draws
generalizations from these
patterns and trends, but analysis
is cursory or generalizations are
illogical
Does not analyze patterns and
trends in the research
3.8
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Secondary Data
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
support for evaluation includes
specific examples
Evaluates if sources or
researchers were biased or
objective, with support for
answer
Evaluates if sources or
researchers were biased or
objective and supports answer,
but evaluation is not complete or
support is illogical or weak
Does not evaluate if sources or
researchers were biased or
objective
3.8
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Synthesize
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
synthesis of articles
demonstrates nuanced ability to
blend multiple articles to support
research question
Comprehensively synthesizes the
main findings of the research
articles
Synthesizes the main findings of
the research articles, but
synthesis is not comprehensive
Does not synthesize the main
findings of the research articles
3.8
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Utilizing
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
identification of strengths and
limitations to using secondary
data considers clinical topics in
healthcare administration
Assesses whether utilizing
secondary data is a feasible
alternative to the researchers’
original research, including what
resources would be most
appropriate to use and the
strengths and limitations to using
secondary data
Assesses whether utilizing
secondary data is a feasible
alternative to the researchers’
original research, but assessment
is not comprehensive
Does not assess whether utilizing
secondary data is a feasible
alternative to the researchers’
original research
3.8
Synthesis and
Interpretation:
Ethical Concerns
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
assessment includes scenarios
such as conflicts of interest
between the researcher and
study sponsor or the lack of an
IRB approval for the study
Comprehensively assesses the
literature for ethical concerns
Assesses the literature for ethical
concerns, but assessment is not
comprehensive
Does not assess the literature for
ethical concerns
3.8
Conclusion: Strengths Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
evaluation of studies’ strengths
demonstrates keen ability to
read beyond superficial results of
research articles
Thoroughly evaluates the studies
for patterns in strengths
Evaluates the studies for
patterns in strengths, but
evaluation is not thorough
Does not evaluate the studies for
patterns in strengths
3.8
Conclusion:
Limitations
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
evaluation of studies’ limitations
demonstrates keen ability to
read beyond superficial results of
research articles
Thoroughly evaluates the studies
for patterns in limitations
Evaluates the studies for
patterns in limitations, but
evaluation is not thorough
Does not evaluate the studies for
patterns in limitations
3.8
Conclusion: Findings Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
assessment demonstrates
nuanced understanding of
statistical principles
Assesses the findings and
conclusions for reliability and
validity, logically supporting
answers
Assesses the findings and
conclusions for reliability and
validity and supports answers,
but assessment is illogical or
support is weak or illogical
Does not assess the findings and
conclusions for reliability and
validity
3.8
Conclusion:
Implications
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
analysis of implications
demonstrates a keen
understanding of research topic
overall
Thoroughly analyzes the
implications of the research,
including how the research will
influence the clinical topic in the
overall picture of healthcare
research
Analyzes the implications of the
research topic, including how the
research topic will influence the
clinic topic, but analysis is
cursory or weak or does not
consider how research fits into
the overall picture of healthcare
research
Does not analyze the
implications of the research topic
3.8
Articulation of
Response
Submission is free of errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, and organization
and is presented in a
professional and easy-to-read
format
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact
readability and articulation of
main ideas
Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas
2.5
Earned Total 100%