Assessment

Comprehensive written project plan focused on the re-design of an element of service provision that enhances the experiences and outcomes of those involved in the service.

This is a level 6 academic assignment that should be written in the third person. Remember that at level 6 we are expecting you to demonstrate your critical thinking and critical evaluation of evidence and theory.

Presentation

The University has specific requirements for presentation of your essay.

• Font: Arial, 12 point
• Margins: Fully justified or left justified
• Line Spacing: 1.5 lines
• No bullet points
• No numbering of paragraphs
• Assignment to be submitted online via FASER.
• Appendices are not included in the word count. You must not exceed the 3000 word limit, any additional words will not be marked above 3000.

Do make sure you prepare your work for submission. You are advised to proofread your work and run a spellcheck before submitting your final draft.

It is important in this assignment to keep the focus centred on the service improvement idea. Assignments that only discuss all the theory of service improvement tend not to pass.

Background literature including commentary on a search strategy. Extraction table included as appendix (template provided) (700 words).

Include details of the search strategy you used to find the evidence to support your service improvement idea. Note the requirement to select 5 pieces of evidence (that you summarise in the extraction table, follow the instructions embedded in the table – see below).

Include a critical review of the 5 pieces of evidence to bring together your supportive literature review. You need to demonstrate your critical appraisal of the evidence and not just describe what the evidence says. Consider using a critical appraisal tool (e.g. CASP, Joanna Briggs Institute), and state which ones you used and why.

Brief Summary of Assessment Requirements

This assignment is a level-6, 3,000-word written project plan that redesigns one element of service provision to improve experiences and outcomes for people using the service. The plan must be written in third person and demonstrate critical thinking and critical evaluation of evidence and theory.

Key requirements and pointers:

• Word limit: 3,000 words (appendices excluded). Any text beyond 3,000 will not be marked.
• Presentation rules: Arial 12pt; 1.5 line spacing; fully or left justified; no bullet points; no numbering of paragraphs; submit online via FASER; proofread and spell-check before submission.
• Focus: Centre the submission on the service improvement idea papers that only rehearse theory usually fail.
• Background literature: Provide a 700-word literature section that includes:
  • A clear search strategy description (databases searched, search terms, inclusion/exclusion criteria, dates).
  • An extraction table (use provided template) included as an appendix summarising the selected studies.
  • Exactly five pieces of evidence summarised in the extraction table and critically reviewed in the main text.
• Critical appraisal: Demonstrate appraisal of the five sources (not mere description). State and justify the critical appraisal tool(s) used (for example CASP or Joanna Briggs Institute).
• Academic expectations: Level-6 standards of argument, synthesis of evidence, application of theory to practice, and use of referencing (consistent academic style).

Step-by-step: how the academic mentor guided the student (concise process overview)

The mentor structured the supervision around clear stages so the student could produce a compliant, critical, and practice-oriented project plan.

1. Clarifying the brief and choosing the service element

• What the mentor did: Reiterated the core brief (level-6 expectations, 3,000 words, third person). Discussed possible service elements (e.g., appointment scheduling, discharge planning, patient information provision) and narrowed selection to one feasible, evidence-able change.

• Why: Keeps the assignment focused and ensures there is adequate literature to support improvement.

2. Defining the improvement idea and objectives

• What the mentor did: Helped convert the chosen element into a concise improvement aim, SMART objectives, and expected outcomes (patient experience, safety, efficiency metrics).

• Why: Assessment penalises unfocused theoretical essays; clear objectives anchor the whole plan.

3. Designing the literature search strategy

• What the mentor did: Co-developed the search strategy: selected appropriate databases (e.g., PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane), refined keywords and Boolean operators, set date/language limits and inclusion/exclusion criteria, and logged the process for reproducibility.

• Why: A transparent search strategy is required and demonstrates academic rigour.

4. Selecting and summarising the five pieces of evidence

• What the mentor did: Advised on study selection (prioritise relevance, recency, study quality), and supervised completion of the extraction table using the provided template (study aim, methods, population, key findings, limitations, relevance to the improvement). Placed the table in an appendix (not counted in the word total).

• Why: The extraction table provides evidence traceability and supports critical synthesis.

5. Critically appraising the evidence

• What the mentor did: Recommended appropriate appraisal tools (e.g., CASP for qualitative/clinical studies or Joanna Briggs Institute checklists for mixed designs), explained why a chosen tool was appropriate, and modelled how to appraise study bias, applicability, and strength of findings.

• Why: Critical appraisal at level 6 is essential students must evaluate evidence quality and limitations, not just summarise.

6. Integrating theory and evidence into the project plan

• What the mentor did: Guided the student to link theoretical frameworks (e.g., change management, quality improvement models) to the practical design (intervention components, stakeholders, resources). Emphasised showing how evidence underpins design choices.

• Why: Demonstrates ability to apply theory to practice and justify decisions with evidence.

7. Planning implementation, evaluation and risk mitigation

• What the mentor did: Helped write a feasible implementation timeline, resource and stakeholder map, evaluation metrics (process and outcome measures), and a brief risk/mitigation section (including ethics and governance considerations).

• Why: A credible plan must be actionable and demonstrate anticipated impacts and safeguards.

8. Writing, presentation and final checks

• What the mentor did: Reviewed draft structure and academic tone (third person), flagged overlong descriptive passages, ensured adherence to presentation rules (Arial 12, 1.5 spacing, no bullets/numbered paragraphs), advised on concise expression to stay within 3,000 words, and checked referencing style and appendix placement.
• Why: Conformance to presentation and word-limit rules is required for marking; clarity and editing improve the argument.

How the Outcome was A chieved

Final deliverables the student produced with mentor support:

• A 3,000-word project plan (third person) focused on one clearly defined service improvement.
• A 700-word background literature section in the main text that:
  • Described the search strategy (databases, terms, inclusion/exclusion criteria, dates).
  • Synthesised findings from the five selected studies and identified gaps/limitations.
• An extraction table placed in the appendix summarising the five studies (template followed).
• A critical appraisal of the five studies using a named tool (e.g., CASP or JBI), with justification for tool choice and appraisal outcomes described in the text.
• An implementation plan with objectives, timeline, stakeholders, outcome/process measures, and a risk/mitigation/ethical considerations section.
• Proper academic presentation (font, spacing, justification), accurate referencing, and final proofreading prior to FASER submission.

Evidence of Meeting assessment Standards:

• The submission remains tightly centred on the improvement idea, linking each section back to how it supports implementation and expected outcomes.
• The literature review and appraisal demonstrate critical evaluation (discussing study strengths, biases, and applicability), rather than uncritical description.
• The project plan integrates theory and empirical evidence, showing level-6 analytical depth.

Learning objectives covered

The student achieved the following learning outcomes through this exercise:

1. Critical appraisal and synthesis of evidence

   • Demonstrated ability to search, select, and critically evaluate primary evidence using an appropriate appraisal tool.

2. Application of theory to practice

   • Linked change management and quality improvement theory to a concrete redesign plan.

3. Research and academic skills

   • Conducted a structured literature search, completed an extraction table, and presented a coherent literature synthesis in 700 words.

4. Project planning and implementation

   • Developed SMART objectives, stakeholder mapping, resource planning, and measurable evaluation criteria.

5. Professional academic communication

   • Produced a third-person, well-presented, and referenced document that meets university formatting and submission requirements.

6. Ethical and risk-aware practice

   • Identified ethical considerations and risk mitigation strategies relevant to service redesign.

Get Expert Academic Support Learn from Samples, Score Higher with Custom Help

Enhance your understanding and boost your academic confidence with our professionally written sample solutions. These samples are designed to help you learn structure, academic tone, referencing style, and the depth of analysis expected in university-level assignments.
However, please remember that these files are strictly for reference and study purposes only. Submitting them as your own work may result in plagiarism penalties from your institution. Use the sample to guide your learning, not as a submission.

If you want a fully original assignment tailored to your topic, requirements, and academic level, our expert academic writers can create a fresh, plagiarism-free solution exclusively for you. Each custom assignment is drafted from scratch, aligned with your instructions, and checked thoroughly for quality and originality.

Why choose a fresh custom-written assignment?

• Completely original and plagiarism-free content
• Written by qualified subject specialists
• Structured and referenced exactly as required
• Aligned with your university guidelines and marking criteria
• Delivered on time with revision support for complete satisfaction

Make a smart academic choice study with samples, but submit with confidence through a custom-written solution.

Call to Action:
Download Sample Solution                        Order Fresh Assignment