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
Adequate

50-59
Sound

60-69 Good

70-79

Excellent

80-89

Outstanding

90-100

Exceptional

Knowledge
and application of comparative methodology theory to healthcare systems
analysis. 

 

Little or insufficient knowledge
base and application of comparative

methodology, with

insufficient analysis and evaluation.

Non – submission Wrong assignment answered.

 

Limited knowledge base and application of
comparative methodology, with narrow analysis and evaluation. Limited
research skills are shown, and there are significant problems with the
report’s structure or limited accuracy in expression.

Adequate knowledge base and application of
comparative research methodology

may have some

specific information but generic in areas with some
omissions. Adequate research skills are shown and management of learning
resources. 

 

Sound knowledge base and application of comparative
research methodology, (some generic also present) with some autonomy in
research but needs to be more consistent. Sound accuracy in expression and
sound management of resources.

Good knowledge base and application of comparative
research methodology, likely to be specific to the health system. Good
management of learning resources with consistent selfdirected research. 

Excellent knowledge base and
application of comparative research methodology and is consistently specific
to health systems. Excellent management of learning resources with consistent
selfdirected research. 

 

 

 

 

 

Outstanding knowledge base by exploring and analysing
comparative research methodology with

evident originality and autonomy of research skills.
The work will exceed the assessment brief in many areas, demonstrate
intellectual originality.

Exceptional knowledge base of comparative research
methodology with extraordinary originality and autonomy. Exceptional
management of learning resources

with a high regard for

autonomy and

exploration that clearly exceeds the assignment
brief. Exceptional structure with highly accurate expression. 

 

 

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
Adequate

50-59
Sound

60-69 Good

70-79

Excellent

80-89

Outstanding

90-100

Exceptional

Evidence of
critical and comparative analysis of the health care workforce challenges and
impacts on service delivery specific in the UK and Germany. 

 

Evidence of
actionable strategies for

recommendations
on the health workforce challenges.

Insufficient analysis with little evidence of use of
learning resources. Work significantly descriptive. Insufficient intellectual
skills. The task was not followed, and there was no to minimum inclusion of
any theory and or significant

difficulty of expression.
For example, no explanation of

Mainly descriptive analysis of the health care workforce
challenges, the impact on service delivery in the health system in the UK and
Germany.

Difficulties in the use of learning resources little
evidence of knowledge of theory and is mainly descriptive with restricted
analysis and limited argument. Limited

Adequate knowledge base of the
health care workforce challenges, inadequate application of comparative and
impacts on service delivery in the UK and Germany. Mainly descriptive with
some attempt at comparative analysis. Adequate management of learning
resources. Some autonomy in research. Adequate evidence of actionable

strategies for
recommendation.

Sound knowledge base of the health care workforce
challenges, sound

application of critical comparative analysis and the impacts
on service delivery.

Demonstrates some

similarities and differences in the UK and
Germany.  Adequate management of
learning resources. Some autonomy in research. Sound evidence of actionable

Good knowledge base of the health care workforce
challenges, good application of critical comparative analysis and impacts on
service delivery in the UK and Germany.

Demonstrates ability to analyse data and
theory/models to identify similarities and differences in both
countries.  Good evidence of actionable
strategies

Excellent knowledge base of the
health care workforce challenges, excellent application of critical
comparative analysis and impacts on

service
delivery in the UK and

Germany. Exploring and analysing the similarities
and differences with evident originality and autonomy. Demonstrates ability
to analyse relevant data with synthesis to relevant theory

Outstanding knowledge base of the health care workforce
challenges, in-depth critical comparative analysis of impacts on service
delivery in the UK and

Germany. Exploring and analysing the similarities and
differences with

evident originality and autonomy. The data presented
is highly relevant and exceeds the requirement of the

Exceptional knowledge base of the health care workforce
challenges, sophisticated critical and comparative of the impacts on service
delivery in the UK and Germany with

extraordinary originality and autonomy. Demonstrate
exceptional analysis of data exploring and analysing with extraordinary
originality and autonomy.

 

theory/model. Inappropriate or no evidence of
actionable strategies for recommendations.

evidence of actionable strategies for
recommendations.

 

strategies for recommendations.

 

 

 

 

 

for recommendations.

consistently.

Excellent evidence of actionable strategies for
recommendations.

assessment brief. Outstanding evidence of actionable
strategies

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
Sound

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
missing. Major omissions of many references. The hierarchy of sources is not
evident.

 

 

 

 

 

Major difficulties with report structure.
Demonstrated weak academic skills with many omissions or wrong references
throughout. Little reference to the hierarchy of sources.  

Some difficulties with report structure, expression
and academic skills. Demonstrated adequate academic skills and may have
omissions and incorrect referencing. Harvard style is followed but not
consistent. Adequate reference to the hierarchy of sources.  

 

Some parts are correctly structured in the report. Mainly
accurate expression in some parts and acceptable level of academic
skills. 

Demonstrated sound academic skills and has some
omissions and some incorrect referencing. Harvard style mostly followed with
some lapses. There is some evidence of referencing the hierarchy of sources.

Accurate report structure and expression.
Demonstrated good academic skills have minor omissions. Mainly consistent
throughout with Harvard style. Demonstration of the hierarchy of
sources. 

Excellent academic skills with no omissions throughout.
Harvard referencing is consistent throughout and have some

originality of sources that
exceed the assessment criteria and clearly demonstrate the hierarchy of
sources.

Outstanding report structure.

Demonstrated outstanding academic skills with no omissions
throughout. Harvard referencing is consistent with obvious originality of
sources that exceeds the assessment expectations.  

 

Exemplar report structure and professional expression. Demonstrated
exceptional academic

skills and has extraordinary originality and autonomy of
sources. 

 

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’
increasing autonomy in relation to their study and developing skill
sets.  Students are expected to
demonstrate problem solving skills, both theoretical and practical. This is
supported by an understanding of appropriate theory; creativity of expression
and thought based in individual judgement; and the ability to seek out,
invoke, analyse and evaluate competing theories or methods of working in a
critically constructive and open manner. Output is articulate, coherent and
skilled in the appropriate medium, with some students producing original or
innovative work in their specialism.

Mark Bands

Outcome

Characteristics of
Student Achievement by Marking Band for ARU’s

Generic
Learning Outcomes (Academic Regulations, Section 2)

Knowledge & Understanding

Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and

Transferable Skills

90-

100%

Achieves module outcome(s)

Exceptional
information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and
ethical issues with extraordinary originality and autonomy.  Work may be considered for publication
within ARU

Exceptional
management of learning resources, with a higher degree of autonomy/exploration
that clearly exceeds the assessment brief. Exceptional structure/ accurate expression. Demonstrates
intellectual originality and imagination. Exceptional team/practical/professional skills.  Work may be considered for publication
within ARU

80-

89%

Outstanding
information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and
ethical issues with clear originality and autonomy

Outstanding
management of learning resources, with a degree of autonomy/exploration that
clearly exceeds the assessment brief. An exemplar of structured/accurate
expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. 

Outstanding
team/practical/professional skills  

70-

79%

 

Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and
problemsolving in theory/ practice/ethics of discipline with considerable
originality

Excellent
management of learning resources, with degree of autonomy/research that may
exceed the assessment brief. Structured and creative expression. Excellent academic/ intellectual
skills and practical/team/ professional/ problem-solving skills  

60-

69%

Good knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and
problemsolving in theory/ practice/ethics of discipline with some originality

Good management of learning resources, with consistent
self-directed research. Structured and accurate expression. Good academic/intellectual skills and
team/practical/ professional/problem solving skills  

50-

59%

 

Sound
knowledge base that supports some analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in
theory/practice/ethics of discipline

Sound management
of learning resources.

Some autonomy in research but inconsistent.

Structured and mainly
accurate expression. Sound level
of academic/ intellectual skills going beyond description at times. Sound
team/practical/professional/problem-solving skills

40-

49%

A marginal pass in

module outcome(s)

Adequate knowledge base with some omissions at the level of
ethical/ theoretical issues. Restricted ability to discuss theory and/or or
solve problems in discipline

Adequate use of learning resources with little autonomy. Some
difficulties with academic/ intellectual skills. Some difficulty with
structure/ accuracy in expression, but evidence of developing
team/practical/professional/ problemsolving skills

30-

39%

A marginal fail in

module

outcome(s)

Satisfies default

qualifying mark

Limited knowledge base.  Limited understanding of
discipline/ethical issues. Difficulty with theory and problem solving in
discipline

Limited use of
learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Little input to teams.

Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Still mainly descriptive.
General difficulty with structure/ accuracy in expression. Practical/
professional/problem-solving skills that are not yet secure

20-

29%

Fails to achieve module

outcome(s)

Qualifying
mark not satisfied

Little evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of
understanding of discipline/ ethical issues. 
Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline

Little
evidence of use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously.
Little input to teams. Little evidence
of academic/ intellectual skills. Work significantly descriptive. Significant
difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Little evidence of practical/professional/ problem-solving skills

10-

19%

Deficient knowledge base. Deficient
understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Major difficulty with theory and
problem solving in discipline

Deficient
use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Deficient input to teams. Deficient
academic/intellectual skills. Work significantly descriptive. Major
difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Deficient practical/professional/problem-solving skills

1-

9%

No evidence of knowledge base; no evidence of understanding of
discipline/ethical issues.  Total
inability with theory and problem solving in discipline

No
evidence of use of learning resources. Completely unable to work
autonomously. No evidence of input
to teams. No evidence of
academic/intellectual skills. Work wholly descriptive. Incoherent
structure/accuracy and expression. No
evidence of practical/professional/ problem-solving skills

0%

Awarded for: (i)
non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the
student fails to address the assignment brief (eg: answers the wrong
question) and/or related learning outcomes