The community of Springfield (population approximately 100,000) is made up of hardworking, mostly older, factory laborers who contributed to both the city and county growth from the late 1950s through early 2005. Since the plant closed, many of the former workers have little to look forward to. There are few jobs available and they are now aging; most are 60 years of age or older.
The Memorial Hospital has been in existence since the mid-1950s and has several primary care physicians and nurse practitioners, a couple of general surgeons, and one cardiologist, but no cardiac surgeons.
Many nurses are recruited from the nearby community college, and the hospital serves as the facility for clinical rounds in their education.
The community is pretty sedentary, with the exception of an occasional game of horseshoes. Cigarette smoking is prominent.
Serious concerns surround the continued existence of the hospital because many residents seek and obtain health care services elsewhere.
Comparethe population of this city to other problem areas using the Healthy People sources. The town’s population is approximately 100,000, making the comparison fairly straightforward.
From this week’s Learning Resources,write a 2-page Letter to the Editorof the local paper that includes:

An evaluation of the issues that would be the focus on need for quality improvement
An analysis of existing problems/issues based on data/resources provided
2 or 3 recommended strategies to address each quality improvement issue

Grading Rubric
EXCELLENT – above expectationsGOOD – met expectationsFAIR – below expectationsPOOR – significantly below expectations or missingEvaluate existing problems/issues
18(22.5%)- 20(25%)
The evaluation shows depth, breadth, triangulation and clarity in critical thinking.
16(20%)- 17(21.25%)
The evaluation fully addresses the issues that would be the focus on need for quality improvement.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully shown.
14(17.5%)- 15(18.75%)
The evaluation lacks depth, breadth, triangulation and clarity in critical thinking.
0(0%)- 13(16.25%)
The evaluation does not address (zero points) or poorly addresses the issues that would be the focus on need for quality improvement.
Analysis of existing problems/issues.
18(22.5%)- 20(25%)
The analysis shows depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.
16(20%)- 17(21.25%)
The analysis fully addresses the existing problems/issues based on data/resources provided.
Triangulation was attempted but not shown.
14(17.5%)- 15(18.75%)
The analysis lacks depth, breadth, triangulation, and clarity in critical thinking.
0(0%)- 13(16.25%)
The analysis does not analyze (zero points) or poorly analyzes the existing problems/issues based on data/resources provided..
Recommendations to address each quality improvement issue
22(27.5%)- 24(30%)
The recommendations show depth, breadth, triangulation and clarity in critical thinking.
19(23.75%)- 21(26.25%)
The recommendations fully address the quality improvement issues.
Triangulation was attempted but not fully shown.
17(21.25%)- 18(22.5%)
The recommendations lack depth, breadth, triangulation and clarity in critical thinking.
0(0%)- 16(20%)
The recommendations do not address (zero points) or poorly address the quality improvement issues.
Writing
15(18.75%)- 16(20%)
The letter to the editor is well organized, uses professional tone, contains original writing and proper paraphrasing, contains very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and is fully consistent with graduate level writing style.
13(16.25%)- 14(17.5%)
The letter to the editor is mostly consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling and writing errors.
11(13.75%)- 12(15%)
The letter to the editor is somewhat consistent with graduate level writing style and may have some spelling, and writing errors.
0(0%)- 10(12.5%)
The letter to the editor is well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, professional tone and writing, or shows heavy reliance on quoting.