Need help with your Assignment?

Get a timely done, PLAGIARISM-FREE paper
from our highly-qualified writers!

Client Meeting and Review

Client Meeting and Review

The healthcare professionals providing feedback on my data analysis proposal

  1. Name: Crystal Coots

Title/Organization: Parkwest Medical Center

  1. Alternate/Secondary Name: John Meriwether

Title/Organization: Parkwest Medical Center

Summarize the Reviewer’s feedback on each item below:

  1. Problem Statement
  • My problem statement: The lack of optimized nurse-to-patient ratios increases morbidity and mortality rates and treatment costs (Drennan & Ross, 2019).
  • The Reviewer noted that the problem statement was general and lacked specificity. As such, there was a need to modify it to achieve specificity.
  • Firstly, the problem statement should focus on a specific department in healthcare organizations. This would facilitate a smooth data collection process. In addition, it would give a more accurate cause-effect relationship.
  • Secondly, the Reviewer noted that patients (customers) are critical stakeholders in a healthcare facility. However, the problem statement focused more on the patient at the organization’s expense.
  1. Relevance of Factors and Units of Measurement
  • According to the Reviewer, the four factors directly related to the problems were relevant. However, he proposed some modifications.
  • Firstly, medication errors refer to errors that occur at any point during the interaction of a healthcare provider with a patient. This could occur during prescribing, dispensing, or administration.
  • The problem statement is specific to nurses. Nurses play a vital role in the safe administration of medication. As a result, medication administration errors would be a more detailed and relevant factor.
  • Secondly, prolonged hospital stays fail to identify the department or unit where patients are being managed.
  • The department’s identity in which prolonged hospital stays are observed would be more specific.
  • Thirdly, the factor addressing patient dissatisfaction should also manage the department or unit these patients visit.
  • Fourthly, the factor addressing nursing staff dissatisfaction should also specify the department or unit where nurses work.
  • Regarding precise units of measurement, the Reviewer approved the first two criteria: Percent of medical errors during one year and the number of days spent in the hospital from the time of admission.
  • The Reviewer proposed changes to the units of measurement addressing patient satisfaction and nurse dissatisfaction. This emanated from the observation that the organization conducts annual rather than periodic surveys.
  1. Method Selected in Literature versus Organization/Public Domain
  • Regarding this aspect, the Reviewer made various observations on the literature review, data analysis framework, and graphics presentation.
  • Firstly, the Reviewer noted that the research articles were credible and authoritative. They fulfilled the CRAAP criteria that evaluate an article’s currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose (Esparrago-Kalidas, 2021).
  • Secondly, the Reviewer noted that the review was summarized and did not address all the key and relevant aspects in detail.
  • According to him, if brevity is a crucial factor, the literature review for each article should be approximately two paragraphs.
  • Regarding data analysis, the Reviewer agreed that site surveys and standards are relevant.
  • Site surveys are a common practice in healthcare facilities and are conducted annually. The site surveys address factors such as patient and nurse satisfaction (Sharma & Rani, 2020). Essentially, these factors are vital in determining the quality of healthcare services.
  • The organization has elaborate standards and procedures that guide its routine. The standards are reviewed and updated regularly to conform with current evidence.
  • Additionally, the healthcare facility uses state and federal standards to guide its decision-making process. As such, the chosen data analysis framework applies to the facility.
  • Regarding the graphics presentation, the Reviewer noted that pie charts would provide a better and more detailed overview of data.
  • The organization uses pie charts and frequency tables to present its data.
  1. Industry Considerations/Comments
  • The Reviewer evaluated the balanced scorecard to determine the proposal’s impact on the organization’s directional strategy.
  • Regarding organizational growth, the proposal enables the healthcare facility to detect the existence of the problem (lack of optimized nurse-to-patient ratios).
  • This information helps the healthcare facility strategize by recruiting more nurses. As a result, the risk of burnout and medication administration errors is reduced. As such, the quality of healthcare services is increased.
  • Regarding the customer, the Reviewer admits that findings from the project will play a significant role in improving patient satisfaction levels.
  • Over the past months, the healthcare facility has recorded increased medication administration errors in the medical-surgical unit.
  • This has led to prolonged hospitalizations and an increase in the number of complaints from patients.
  • In finance, the Reviewer acknowledged that optimized nurse-to-patient ratios would improve healthcare service quality, patient outcomes, and treatment costs.
  • Regarding business, the Reviewer reported that nurses and other healthcare providers have complained about burnout over the past few years. Consequently, the healthcare facility has experienced a high incidence of resignations.
  • Therefore, accurate findings from this project will enable the healthcare facility to identify this problem and execute necessary preventive measures.
  • The Reviewer questioned the definitive percentages and timeframes contained in the balanced scorecard. However, he admitted that they could be retained because they provide preliminary and expected estimates.
  • The project’s performance indicators reflect the operations of the healthcare facility. For example, the facility uses job satisfaction scales to evaluate the nurses.
  1. Strengths
  • The project has various strengths.
  • Firstly, the project’s problem statement addresses issues of global concern (Drennan & Ross, 2019). Essentially, this implies that the findings of this project are generalizable. Additionally, the interventions to address the problem are generalizable.
  • Secondly, the project’s evidence is backed by credible peer-reviewed journal articles.
  • This increases the accuracy and reliability of the project.
  • Thirdly, the project has a balanced scorecard that evaluates the organization’s directional strategy.
  • This information is essential for business, finance, customer, and organizational growth.
  • Healthcare facilities can use the findings from this project to optimize their workflow, reduce medication administration errors, and improve overall patient safety.
  • By so doing, the balanced scorecard provides an elaborate value proposition to the organization.
  • The project is relevant to the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators.
  • The National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators provides quarterly and annual reports on quality indicators such as voluntary nurse turnover, registered nurse satisfaction surveys, and the daily hours nurses spend with patients (Oner et al., 2021).
  • Fifthly, the project identifies an elaborate data analysis framework and methods of presenting findings.
  • This information is essential because it enables the researcher to remain focused and objective.
  • The other strength is that the researcher(s) have identified how the project impacts their professional growth.
  1. Areas for Improvement
  • The first area for improvement is the problem statement.
  • The problem statement should focus on a specific department in the healthcare organization. This would facilitate a smooth data collection process. In addition, it would give a more accurate cause-effect relationship.
  • The second area of improvement is the identity of the relevance of factors and units of measurement.
  • Relevant factors should be specific. For example, medication administration errors would be a more detailed and relevant factor. Furthermore, the department’s identity in which prolonged hospital stays are observed would be more specific.
  • The units of measurement entailing patient or nurse satisfaction levels are conducted annually.
  • The third area of improvement is the literature review.
  • The length of the literature review can be increased to cover more details. A detailed literature review provides an in-depth insight into the topic.
  • The final area for improvement is the presentation of findings. Notably, a project should explore various methods of displaying findings graphically.
  1. Insights/Other Observations:
  • Percentages and timeframes contained in the balanced scorecard are not definitive. They should be used as benchmarks.
  • Evaluation of these percentages and timeframes can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the project.
  • The project is relevant to the healthcare facility. Over the past months, the healthcare facility has recorded increased medication administration errors in the medical-surgical unit.
  • This information will be used to establish a causal effect relationship between nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes.
  • The healthcare facility’s data sets include the project’s performance indicators. As such, they are relevant.
  • The project can be completed within the allocated time.
  • The project’s balanced scorecard is harmonious with the healthcare facility’s goals and objectives regarding its business, finance, customer service, and organizational growth.

Required Format: Reviewer’s Signature

Name/Credentials                                        Title/Organization                                          Date

Crystal Coots, RN                            Parkwest Medical Center                                 23/9/2022

John Meriwether, MD                      Parkwest Medical Center                                 23/9/2022


Drennan, V. M., & Ross, F. (2019). Global nurse shortages – The facts, the impact, and action for change. British Medical Bulletin, 130(1), 25–37.

Esparrago-Kalidas, A. J. (2021). The Effectiveness of CRAAP Test in Evaluating Credibility of Sources. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 1(2), 1–14.

Oner, B., Zengul, F. D., Oner, N., Ivanova, N. V., Karadag, A., & Patrician, P. A. (2021). Nursing-sensitive indicators for nursing care: A systematic review (1997–2017). Nursing Open, 8(3), 1005–1022.

Sharma, K. S., & Rani, R. (2020). Nurse‑to‑patient ratio and nurse staffing norms for hospitals in India: A critical analysis of national benchmarks. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 6(2), 169–170.


We’ll write everything from scratch


Meet with a healthcare professional in your prospective client organization to present your data review project proposal. Then, submit a summary of the required changes with the client’s signature. There is no page limit for this assessment.

Client Meeting and Review

Client Meeting and Review

Note: Each assessment of your capstone project is built on the work you have completed in previous assessments. Therefore, you must complete the assessments in this course in the order in which they are presented.

The ability to articulate the potential impact of your project concisely to project stakeholders can impact the successful implementation of any change initiative. The successful outcome of your project depends upon your ability to communicate effectively and prepare for meetings with important stakeholders.

This assessment is crucial to the success of your data review project and allows you to refine your project proposal and obtain the client’s approval. In addition, you will work closely with the client to ensure that your project adds value to the organization while supporting your career goals and leadership development.

Overview and Preparation
Note: In this assessment, you will present the project proposal you developed in Assessment 2 to the client for negotiation and approval.

Document Review
To prepare for this assessment, read the following:

Client Meeting and Project Approval Guide [PDF].
The information provided in this document will help you prepare the meetings, represent the data review project proposal, and obtain approval from the client. In addition, it provides guidance, recommendations, and examples that are crucial to completing this assessment. You are encouraged to download this document and keep it as a reference.

In addition, download and review the template you will use for this assessment:

Assessment 3 Client Meeting and Review Template [DOCX].
Critical Preparatory Tasks for a Successful Meeting
Thorough preparation will ensure that your meeting is productive. Take the following steps to prepare for the conference:

Conduct background research on your prospective client organization. Identify a first and second choice for connecting with a practicing healthcare professional in that organization.
Research best practices for professional communication and feedback to prepare for the interview.
Reflect upon your experience in human services and health care administration relevant to your proposed project. Based on the NCHL competencies, is your proposed project realistic?
Prepare a list of questions for the practicing healthcare professional. Refer to the Client Meeting and Project Approval Guide [PDF].
Note: You should arrive at the meeting with proposed performance indicators related to your identified healthcare issue. However, you may have chosen the wrong indicators; they are not included in the organization’s data sets, or the client thinks different indicators might be more helpful. It is your job to verify, discover, or redefine your performance indicators so that you can proceed with your data review.

You will need to take the following steps to complete this assessment. Details and supporting information for completing each step are in the Client Meeting and Project Approval Guide [PDF].

Step 1: Schedule a meeting with the prospective client.

Step 2: Meet with the client and present your project proposal (your combined Assessments 1 and 2). You may wish to send your proposal to your Reviewer before the meeting.

Provide evidence-based support for your assertions and conclusions.
Be clear about the project scope, execution, and focus.
Be clear about the value of your proposed project and how you will measure the outcomes for each of the four areas of the balanced scorecard.
Be prepared to answer questions that the client asks.
Step 3: Work with the client to refine your project proposal as necessary, including any negotiated changes, using the Assessment 3 Client Meeting and Review Template [DOCX]. Summarize the feedback offered by your client during the meeting and provide any substantive, relevant details needed for clarification. (You will integrate the client feedback into your final project report.)

Step 4: Submit the changes noted in your Assessment 3 template to the client for their approval and signature. (The client’s signature, title, and contact information are required.)

Step 5: Scan and submit the signed copy of the Assessment 3 template as the deliverable for this assessment.

Note: The requirements outlined below correspond to the grading criteria in the scoring guide. At a minimum, ensure you address each point during the client meeting and project approval process. You may also want to read the assessment scoring guide to understand how each criterion will be assessed.

Identify the appropriate healthcare professional in an organization to seek approval for a proposed project.
Consider the people with the requisite decision-making authority who can provide guidance and recommendations.
Negotiate changes to project scope, execution, or focus based on feedback solicited from the client.
Use this meeting as an opportunity to refine your proposed project.
Solicit feedback on critical aspects of the project:
Problem Statement.
Relevance of Factors and Units of Measurement.
Method Selected in Literature v. Organization/Public Domain.
Industry Considerations/Comments.
Areas for Improvement.
Insights/Other Observations.
Verify, discover, or redefine your performance indicators and outcome measures.
Ensure that negotiated changes are feasible and do not present obstacles to successful course completion.
Obtain approval for a proposed project.
Be sure that your revised proposal is a collaborative effort between you and the client that meets organizational requirements, such as confidentiality.
Consider your role and responsibilities for establishing a solid working relationship with the client in executing the project.
Competencies Measured
By completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assessment criteria:

Competency 3: People: Create an organizational climate that values and supports employees and colleagues in health care settings.
Identify the appropriate healthcare professional in an organization to seek approval for a proposed project.
Negotiate changes to project scope, execution, or focus based on feedback solicited from the client.
Obtain approval for a proposed project.

Order Solution Now