ASSIGNMENT QUESTION
Globally, there is a large shortage of health care workers. The needs-based shortage of health care workers is projected to exceed 18 million by 2030. The projection and current trends of health workers production and employment have a significant impact on populations’ health outcomes and health systems performance in achieving the World Health Organisation’s Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 (WHO, 2022).
As a health system analyst, use comparative research methodology to examine the challenges faced by both the United Kingdom and Germany with regards to their health care workforce. In a report format, you should provide key statistical evidence from literature on the health care workforce density per population in both countries, and critically analyse the impact of workforce shortages on operational activities, such as service delivery.
You will conclude your report by providing evidence-based and five (5) actionable strategies for overcoming these challenges aimed at strengthening their respective health systems in the aftermath of the pandemic.
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Use ARU standard report format for writing structure.
In writing your report you are expected to use theoretical perspectives you have studied during the course or from your research and make reference to national evidence. It is expected that you will use 15-20 independently researched academic sources from the ARU library.
LO1: Knowledge and Understanding
Critically review key sources of information to underpin comparative analysis.
Throughout the report, you must ensure to use relevant information on both countries, United Kingdom and Germany to demonstrate the healthcare workforce challenges in both health systems. You should support all discussions with evidence from credible sources. Analysis should focus on providing differences and similarities of the challenges and impact of the health workforce crisis.
LO3: Intellectual, practical, affective and transferrable skills Applying comparative research methodologies.
There should be an application of comparative research methodology to compare and contrast. Identify similarities and differences of the challenges. You must provide recommendations of what need to be done for strengthening the health system workforce capacity.
READING REQUIREMENT Core reading
Johnson, J., Stoskopf, C. and Shi, L. (2017) Comparative Health Systems Burlington: MA Jones and Bartlett Learning
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD,2022) Health at a Glance: Europe. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/health/health-at-aglance-europe/.
The Commonwealth Fund: International Health Care Systems Profile (2022) Available at:
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-healthpolicy-center/countries.
The World Health Organization: Working for Health 2022-2030 Action Plan (WHO,2022). Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240063341.
Working for health and growth: investing in the health workforce – High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241511308.
World Health Organisation (WHO,2022) Working for health and growth: investing in the health workforce. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241511308.
Wider reading
Kuhlmann et al., (2023) Comparing Health Workforce Policy during a Major Global Health
Crisis: A Critical Conceptual Debate and International Empirical Investigation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5035. Available online at https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20065035.
Reed, S., Schlepper, L. and Edwards, N. (2022) Health system recovery from Covid-19 International lessons for the NHS. Nuffield Trust. Available online
at:https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-03/health-system-recoveryfinal-pdf-1-.pdf.
Charles, A., Naylor, C. and Murray, R. (2021) The King’s fund Integrated care systems in
London Challenges and opportunities ahead. Available online
at:https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-02/integrated-care-systemsLondon-2021_0.pdf.
Please note that the sources listed are expected for your written assessment. These sources will be part of the module and their content is deemed necessary to produce a relevant assessment. Module markers will expect to see them integrated into your work and appropriately referenced.
Failure to include these sources may result in a “Viva Voce” meeting during which you would be required to explain your work and your reasons for not including these key sources.
MARKING CRITERIA
|
0-29 Failing |
30-39 Limited |
40-49 |
50-59 |
60-69 Good |
70-79 Excellent |
80-89 Outstanding |
90-100 Exceptional |
Knowledge |
Little or insufficient knowledge methodology, with insufficient analysis and evaluation. Non – submission Wrong assignment answered. |
Limited knowledge base and application of |
Adequate knowledge base and application of may have some specific information but generic in areas with some |
Sound knowledge base and application of comparative |
Good knowledge base and application of comparative |
Excellent knowledge base and |
Outstanding knowledge base by exploring and analysing evident originality and autonomy of research skills. |
Exceptional knowledge base of comparative research with a high regard for autonomy and exploration that clearly exceeds the assignment |
40 marks |
0-11 |
12-15 |
16-19 |
20-23 |
24-27 |
28-31 |
32-35 |
36-40 |
|
0-29 Failing |
30-39 Limited |
40-49 |
50-59 |
60-69 Good |
70-79 Excellent |
80-89 Outstanding |
90-100 Exceptional |
Evidence of Evidence of recommendations |
Insufficient analysis with little evidence of use of difficulty of expression. |
Mainly descriptive analysis of the health care workforce Difficulties in the use of learning resources little |
Adequate knowledge base of the strategies for |
Sound knowledge base of the health care workforce application of critical comparative analysis and the impacts Demonstrates some similarities and differences in the UK and |
Good knowledge base of the health care workforce Demonstrates ability to analyse data and |
Excellent knowledge base of the service Germany. Exploring and analysing the similarities |
Outstanding knowledge base of the health care workforce Germany. Exploring and analysing the similarities and evident originality and autonomy. The data presented |
Exceptional knowledge base of the health care workforce extraordinary originality and autonomy. Demonstrate |
|
theory/model. Inappropriate or no evidence of |
evidence of actionable strategies for |
|
strategies for recommendations. |
for recommendations. |
consistently. Excellent evidence of actionable strategies for |
assessment brief. Outstanding evidence of actionable for recommendations. |
Exceptional evidence of actionable strategies for recommendations. |
50 marks |
0-14 |
15-19 |
20-24 |
25-29 |
30-34 |
35-39 |
40-44 |
45-50 |
|
0-29 Failing |
30-39 Limited |
40-49 Adequate |
50-59 |
60-69 Good |
70-79 Excellent |
80-89 Outstanding |
90-100 Exceptional |
Demonstration of academic skills. |
Very weak academic referencing skills; Harvard referencing not followed or |
Major difficulties with report structure. |
Some difficulties with report structure, expression |
Some parts are correctly structured in the report. Mainly Demonstrated sound academic skills and has some |
Accurate report structure and expression. |
Excellent academic skills with no omissions throughout. originality of sources that |
Outstanding report structure. Demonstrated outstanding academic skills with no omissions |
Exemplar report structure and professional expression. Demonstrated skills and has extraordinary originality and autonomy of |
10 marks |
0-2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9-10 |
ARU GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS: LEVEL 6 – the Depth stage
Level 6 is characterised by an expectation of students’ |
|||
Mark Bands |
Outcome |
Characteristics of Generic |
|
Knowledge & Understanding |
Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills |
||
90- 100% |
Achieves module outcome(s) |
Exceptional |
Exceptional |
80- 89% |
Outstanding |
Outstanding Outstanding |
70- 79% |
|
Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and |
Excellent |
60- 69% |
Good knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and |
Good management of learning resources, with consistent |
|
50- 59% |
|
Sound |
Sound management Some autonomy in research but inconsistent. Structured and mainly |
40- 49% |
A marginal pass in module outcome(s) |
Adequate knowledge base with some omissions at the level of |
Adequate use of learning resources with little autonomy. Some |
30- 39% |
A marginal fail in module outcome(s) Satisfies default qualifying mark |
Limited knowledge base. Limited understanding of |
Limited use of Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Still mainly descriptive. |
20- 29% |
Fails to achieve module outcome(s) Qualifying |
Little evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of |
Little |
10- 19% |
Deficient knowledge base. Deficient |
Deficient |
|
1- 9% |
No evidence of knowledge base; no evidence of understanding of |
No |
|
0% |
Awarded for: (i) |