Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– ## EHRPPTAssignment.docx
– ## Rubric-Benchmark-ElectronicHealthRecordsPitch.pdf
**## EHRPPTAssignment.docx**
Assume that you are a health care administrator who oversees a small conglomerate of local clinics. After the recent acquisition of a physical therapy clinic, it was brought to the attention of key stakeholders that the clinics were all operating with different electronic health records software, which was affecting interoperability between clinics. In an effort to streamline communication and improve efficiency, the CEO has asked you to look up some options for a new EHR software to implement across all of your health network's clinics.
Research the different types of electronic health records software on the market and choose the top three that would prove most beneficial to your health network. In a 12–15-slide PowerPoint presentation complete with robust speaker notes, present your findings to the CEO and other key stakeholders.
Identify all three EHR software options you have selected for consideration, and include the following in your presentation:
1. Describe system requirements and compatible interfaces for each.
2. Specify the cost of implementation.
3. Describe the timeline for integration and user training.
4. Describe privacy and security options, including patient accessibility to records.
5. Differentiate between the hardware requirements and software capabilities of each vendor system and how they will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical outcomes.
6. Explain how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria, and profitability and increase interoperability between clinics.
7. Discuss differences between clinical and executive support features of electronic records and health information systems.
8. List pros and cons of each software system in relation to the other options you have selected.
9. Recommend the option you believe the network should adopt and why.
Cite all sources used and include them on a reference slide, which is not included in the slide length requirement.
**## Rubric-Benchmark-ElectronicHealthRecordsPitch.pdf**
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 1 of 14about:srcdoc
Benchmark – Electronic Health Records Pitch – Rubric
System Requirements and Compatible Interfaces 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with each
software system
5. Target 5.95 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with
relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is present, but only minimal detail or support is
provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is not included.
Collapse All
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 2 of 14about:srcdoc
Costs 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Costs of implementing each software system
5. Target 5.95 points
The costs of implementing each software system are thoroughly explored and
clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
The costs of implementing each software system are provided with
appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
The costs of implementing each software system is present, but only minimal
detail or support are provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
The costs of implementing each software system are incomplete or otherwise
deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The costs of implementing each software system are not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 3 of 14about:srcdoc
Integration and Training Timeline 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
5. Target 5.95 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and
support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 4 of 14about:srcdoc
Privacy and Security 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers
5. Target 5.95 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is thoroughly explored and clearly
explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is provided with appropriate details
and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is present, but only minimal detail or
support is provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 5 of 14about:srcdoc
Software Capabilities 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes
5. Target 5.95 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details
and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 6 of 14about:srcdoc
Communication and Interoperability (B) 6.8 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria, and
profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics (C2.4)
5. Target 6.8 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.78 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.1 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.42 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is not
included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 7 of 14about:srcdoc
Clinical and Executive Support Features 7.65 points
Criteria Description
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems
5. Target 7.65 points
4. Acceptable 6.5 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is provided with
appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.74 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is present, but only
minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.97 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is incomplete or otherwise
deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 8 of 14about:srcdoc
Pros and Cons 7.65 points
Criteria Description
Comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the other
two
5. Target 7.65 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details
and support.
4. Acceptable 6.5 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.74 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.97 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 9 of 14about:srcdoc
Recommendation 7.65 points
Criteria Description
Recommendation for which software the network should adopt
5. Target 7.65 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is
thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 6.5 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is provided
with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.74 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is present,
but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.97 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is
incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is not
included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 10 of 14about:srcdoc
Presentation of Content 6.8 points
Criteria Description
Presentation of Content
5. Target 6.8 points
The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and
relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced
organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.
4. Acceptable 5.78 points
The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting
information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes
persuasive information from reliable sources.
3. Approaching 5.1 points
The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some
inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other.
2. Insufficient 4.42 points
The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong
sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information.
Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 11 of 14about:srcdoc
Layout 4.25 points
Criteria Description
Layout
5. Target 4.25 points
The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with
appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is
appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The
background and colors enhance the readability of the text.
4. Acceptable 3.61 points
The layout background and text complement each other and enable the
content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies
appropriately for headings and text.
3. Approaching 3.19 points
The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes
the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold,
long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance
readability.
2. Insufficient 2.76 points
The layout shows some structure but appears cluttered and busy or
distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall
readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts,
dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations
of text.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and
subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read
with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate
contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold
formatting is evident.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 12 of 14about:srcdoc
Language Use and Audience Awareness 3.4 points
Criteria Description
Includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.
5. Target 3.4 points
The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and
word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose,
discipline, and scope.
4. Acceptable 2.89 points
The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate
vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to
communicate clearly.
3. Approaching 2.55 points
Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.
2. Insufficient 2.21 points
Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice
are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech
appropriately.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident.
Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates
writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 13 of 14about:srcdoc
Mechanics of Writing 4.25 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use
5. Target 4.25 points
No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence
structure are used throughout.
4. Acceptable 3.61 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence
structure are used.
3. Approaching 3.19 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally
appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Insufficient 2.76 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in
language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect
language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 14 of 14about:srcdoc
Format/Documentation 6.8 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;
documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,
appropriate to assignment and discipline.
5. Target 6.8 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present.
4. Acceptable 5.78 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
3. Approaching 5.1 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some
obvious errors.
2. Insufficient 4.42 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent
errors in documentation of sources are evident.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.
Total 85 points
© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
**## Rubric-Benchmark-ElectronicHealthRecordsPitch.pdf**
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 1 of 14about:srcdoc
Benchmark – Electronic Health Records Pitch – Rubric
System Requirements and Compatible Interfaces 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with each
software system
5. Target 5.95 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with
relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is present, but only minimal detail or support is
provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is not included.
Collapse All
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 2 of 14about:srcdoc
Costs 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Costs of implementing each software system
5. Target 5.95 points
The costs of implementing each software system are thoroughly explored and
clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
The costs of implementing each software system are provided with
appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
The costs of implementing each software system is present, but only minimal
detail or support are provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
The costs of implementing each software system are incomplete or otherwise
deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The costs of implementing each software system are not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 3 of 14about:srcdoc
Integration and Training Timeline 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
5. Target 5.95 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and
support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 4 of 14about:srcdoc
Privacy and Security 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers
5. Target 5.95 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is thoroughly explored and clearly
explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is provided with appropriate details
and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is present, but only minimal detail or
support is provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 5 of 14about:srcdoc
Software Capabilities 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes
5. Target 5.95 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details
and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 6 of 14about:srcdoc
Communication and Interoperability (B) 6.8 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria, and
profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics (C2.4)
5. Target 6.8 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.78 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.1 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.42 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is not
included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 7 of 14about:srcdoc
Clinical and Executive Support Features 7.65 points
Criteria Description
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems
5. Target 7.65 points
4. Acceptable 6.5 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is provided with
appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.74 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is present, but only
minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.97 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is incomplete or otherwise
deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 8 of 14about:srcdoc
Pros and Cons 7.65 points
Criteria Description
Comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the other
two
5. Target 7.65 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details
and support.
4. Acceptable 6.5 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.74 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.97 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 9 of 14about:srcdoc
Recommendation 7.65 points
Criteria Description
Recommendation for which software the network should adopt
5. Target 7.65 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is
thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 6.5 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is provided
with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.74 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is present,
but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.97 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is
incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is not
included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 10 of 14about:srcdoc
Presentation of Content 6.8 points
Criteria Description
Presentation of Content
5. Target 6.8 points
The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and
relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced
organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.
4. Acceptable 5.78 points
The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting
information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes
persuasive information from reliable sources.
3. Approaching 5.1 points
The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some
inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other.
2. Insufficient 4.42 points
The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong
sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information.
Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 11 of 14about:srcdoc
Layout 4.25 points
Criteria Description
Layout
5. Target 4.25 points
The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with
appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is
appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The
background and colors enhance the readability of the text.
4. Acceptable 3.61 points
The layout background and text complement each other and enable the
content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies
appropriately for headings and text.
3. Approaching 3.19 points
The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes
the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold,
long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance
readability.
2. Insufficient 2.76 points
The layout shows some structure but appears cluttered and busy or
distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall
readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts,
dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations
of text.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and
subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read
with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate
contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold
formatting is evident.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 12 of 14about:srcdoc
Language Use and Audience Awareness 3.4 points
Criteria Description
Includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.
5. Target 3.4 points
The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and
word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose,
discipline, and scope.
4. Acceptable 2.89 points
The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate
vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to
communicate clearly.
3. Approaching 2.55 points
Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.
2. Insufficient 2.21 points
Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice
are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech
appropriately.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident.
Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates
writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 13 of 14about:srcdoc
Mechanics of Writing 4.25 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use
5. Target 4.25 points
No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence
structure are used throughout.
4. Acceptable 3.61 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence
structure are used.
3. Approaching 3.19 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally
appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Insufficient 2.76 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in
language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect
language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 14 of 14about:srcdoc
Format/Documentation 6.8 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;
documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,
appropriate to assignment and discipline.
5. Target 6.8 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present.
4. Acceptable 5.78 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
3. Approaching 5.1 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some
obvious errors.
2. Insufficient 4.42 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent
errors in documentation of sources are evident.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.
Total 85 points
© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
**## EHRPPTAssignment.docx**
Assume that you are a health care administrator who oversees a small conglomerate of local clinics. After the recent acquisition of a physical therapy clinic, it was brought to the attention of key stakeholders that the clinics were all operating with different electronic health records software, which was affecting interoperability between clinics. In an effort to streamline communication and improve efficiency, the CEO has asked you to look up some options for a new EHR software to implement across all of your health network's clinics.
Research the different types of electronic health records software on the market and choose the top three that would prove most beneficial to your health network. In a 12–15-slide PowerPoint presentation complete with robust speaker notes, present your findings to the CEO and other key stakeholders.
Identify all three EHR software options you have selected for consideration, and include the following in your presentation:
1. Describe system requirements and compatible interfaces for each.
2. Specify the cost of implementation.
3. Describe the timeline for integration and user training.
4. Describe privacy and security options, including patient accessibility to records.
5. Differentiate between the hardware requirements and software capabilities of each vendor system and how they will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical outcomes.
6. Explain how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria, and profitability and increase interoperability between clinics.
7. Discuss differences between clinical and executive support features of electronic records and health information systems.
8. List pros and cons of each software system in relation to the other options you have selected.
9. Recommend the option you believe the network should adopt and why.
Cite all sources used and include them on a reference slide, which is not included in the slide length requirement.
**## Rubric-Benchmark-ElectronicHealthRecordsPitch.pdf**
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 1 of 14about:srcdoc
Benchmark – Electronic Health Records Pitch – Rubric
System Requirements and Compatible Interfaces 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with each
software system
5. Target 5.95 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with
relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is present, but only minimal detail or support is
provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is not included.
Collapse All
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 2 of 14about:srcdoc
Costs 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Costs of implementing each software system
5. Target 5.95 points
The costs of implementing each software system are thoroughly explored and
clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
The costs of implementing each software system are provided with
appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
The costs of implementing each software system is present, but only minimal
detail or support are provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
The costs of implementing each software system are incomplete or otherwise
deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The costs of implementing each software system are not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 3 of 14about:srcdoc
Integration and Training Timeline 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
5. Target 5.95 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and
support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 4 of 14about:srcdoc
Privacy and Security 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers
5. Target 5.95 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is thoroughly explored and clearly
explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is provided with appropriate details
and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is present, but only minimal detail or
support is provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 5 of 14about:srcdoc
Software Capabilities 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes
5. Target 5.95 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details
and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 6 of 14about:srcdoc
Communication and Interoperability (B) 6.8 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria, and
profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics (C2.4)
5. Target 6.8 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.78 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.1 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.42 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is not
included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 7 of 14about:srcdoc
Clinical and Executive Support Features 7.65 points
Criteria Description
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems
5. Target 7.65 points
4. Acceptable 6.5 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is provided with
appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.74 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is present, but only
minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.97 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is incomplete or otherwise
deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 8 of 14about:srcdoc
Pros and Cons 7.65 points
Criteria Description
Comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the other
two
5. Target 7.65 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details
and support.
4. Acceptable 6.5 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.74 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.97 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 9 of 14about:srcdoc
Recommendation 7.65 points
Criteria Description
Recommendation for which software the network should adopt
5. Target 7.65 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is
thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 6.5 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is provided
with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.74 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is present,
but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.97 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is
incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is not
included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 10 of 14about:srcdoc
Presentation of Content 6.8 points
Criteria Description
Presentation of Content
5. Target 6.8 points
The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and
relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced
organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.
4. Acceptable 5.78 points
The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting
information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes
persuasive information from reliable sources.
3. Approaching 5.1 points
The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some
inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other.
2. Insufficient 4.42 points
The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong
sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information.
Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 11 of 14about:srcdoc
Layout 4.25 points
Criteria Description
Layout
5. Target 4.25 points
The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with
appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is
appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The
background and colors enhance the readability of the text.
4. Acceptable 3.61 points
The layout background and text complement each other and enable the
content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies
appropriately for headings and text.
3. Approaching 3.19 points
The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes
the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold,
long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance
readability.
2. Insufficient 2.76 points
The layout shows some structure but appears cluttered and busy or
distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall
readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts,
dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations
of text.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and
subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read
with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate
contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold
formatting is evident.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 12 of 14about:srcdoc
Language Use and Audience Awareness 3.4 points
Criteria Description
Includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.
5. Target 3.4 points
The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and
word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose,
discipline, and scope.
4. Acceptable 2.89 points
The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate
vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to
communicate clearly.
3. Approaching 2.55 points
Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.
2. Insufficient 2.21 points
Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice
are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech
appropriately.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident.
Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates
writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 13 of 14about:srcdoc
Mechanics of Writing 4.25 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use
5. Target 4.25 points
No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence
structure are used throughout.
4. Acceptable 3.61 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence
structure are used.
3. Approaching 3.19 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally
appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Insufficient 2.76 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in
language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect
language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 14 of 14about:srcdoc
Format/Documentation 6.8 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;
documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,
appropriate to assignment and discipline.
5. Target 6.8 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present.
4. Acceptable 5.78 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
3. Approaching 5.1 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some
obvious errors.
2. Insufficient 4.42 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent
errors in documentation of sources are evident.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.
Total 85 points
© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
**## EHRPPTAssignment.docx**
Assume that you are a health care administrator who oversees a small conglomerate of local clinics. After the recent acquisition of a physical therapy clinic, it was brought to the attention of key stakeholders that the clinics were all operating with different electronic health records software, which was affecting interoperability between clinics. In an effort to streamline communication and improve efficiency, the CEO has asked you to look up some options for a new EHR software to implement across all of your health network's clinics.
Research the different types of electronic health records software on the market and choose the top three that would prove most beneficial to your health network. In a 12–15-slide PowerPoint presentation complete with robust speaker notes, present your findings to the CEO and other key stakeholders.
Identify all three EHR software options you have selected for consideration, and include the following in your presentation:
1. Describe system requirements and compatible interfaces for each.
2. Specify the cost of implementation.
3. Describe the timeline for integration and user training.
4. Describe privacy and security options, including patient accessibility to records.
5. Differentiate between the hardware requirements and software capabilities of each vendor system and how they will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical outcomes.
6. Explain how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria, and profitability and increase interoperability between clinics.
7. Discuss differences between clinical and executive support features of electronic records and health information systems.
8. List pros and cons of each software system in relation to the other options you have selected.
9. Recommend the option you believe the network should adopt and why.
Cite all sources used and include them on a reference slide, which is not included in the slide length requirement.
**## Rubric-Benchmark-ElectronicHealthRecordsPitch.pdf**
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 1 of 14about:srcdoc
Benchmark – Electronic Health Records Pitch – Rubric
System Requirements and Compatible Interfaces 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with each
software system
5. Target 5.95 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with
relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is present, but only minimal detail or support is
provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
An explanation of the system requirements and interfaces compatible with
each software system is not included.
Collapse All
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 2 of 14about:srcdoc
Costs 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Costs of implementing each software system
5. Target 5.95 points
The costs of implementing each software system are thoroughly explored and
clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
The costs of implementing each software system are provided with
appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
The costs of implementing each software system is present, but only minimal
detail or support are provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
The costs of implementing each software system are incomplete or otherwise
deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The costs of implementing each software system are not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 3 of 14about:srcdoc
Integration and Training Timeline 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
5. Target 5.95 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and
support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
A projected timeline for integration and user training of each software system
is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 4 of 14about:srcdoc
Privacy and Security 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers
5. Target 5.95 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is thoroughly explored and clearly
explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is provided with appropriate details
and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is present, but only minimal detail or
support is provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
An exploration of the privacy and security options each system offers,
including patient accessibility to records, is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 5 of 14about:srcdoc
Software Capabilities 5.95 points
Criteria Description
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes
5. Target 5.95 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details
and support.
4. Acceptable 5.06 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 4.46 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 3.87 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Distinction between hardware requirements and software capabilities of how
each vendor system will enable clinics to improve executive and clinical
outcomes is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 6 of 14about:srcdoc
Communication and Interoperability (B) 6.8 points
Criteria Description
Explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria, and
profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics (C2.4)
5. Target 6.8 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 5.78 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.1 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.42 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is
incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
An explanation of how each system would facilitate efficient costs, criteria,
and profitability and would increase interoperability between clinics is not
included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 7 of 14about:srcdoc
Clinical and Executive Support Features 7.65 points
Criteria Description
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems
5. Target 7.65 points
4. Acceptable 6.5 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is provided with
appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.74 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is present, but only
minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.97 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is incomplete or otherwise
deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Discussion of differences between clinical and executive support features of
electronic records and health information systems is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 8 of 14about:srcdoc
Pros and Cons 7.65 points
Criteria Description
Comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the other
two
5. Target 7.65 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details
and support.
4. Acceptable 6.5 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is provided with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.74 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is present, but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.97 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
A comparison of the pros and cons of each software system relative to the
other two is not included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 9 of 14about:srcdoc
Recommendation 7.65 points
Criteria Description
Recommendation for which software the network should adopt
5. Target 7.65 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is
thoroughly explored and clearly explained with relevant details and support.
4. Acceptable 6.5 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is provided
with appropriate details and support.
3. Approaching 5.74 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is present,
but only minimal detail or support is provided.
2. Insufficient 4.97 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is
incomplete or otherwise deficient.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
A recommendation for which software the network should adopt is not
included.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 10 of 14about:srcdoc
Presentation of Content 6.8 points
Criteria Description
Presentation of Content
5. Target 6.8 points
The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and
relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced
organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea.
4. Acceptable 5.78 points
The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting
information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes
persuasive information from reliable sources.
3. Approaching 5.1 points
The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some
inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other.
2. Insufficient 4.42 points
The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong
sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information.
Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 11 of 14about:srcdoc
Layout 4.25 points
Criteria Description
Layout
5. Target 4.25 points
The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with
appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is
appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The
background and colors enhance the readability of the text.
4. Acceptable 3.61 points
The layout background and text complement each other and enable the
content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies
appropriately for headings and text.
3. Approaching 3.19 points
The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes
the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold,
long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance
readability.
2. Insufficient 2.76 points
The layout shows some structure but appears cluttered and busy or
distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall
readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts,
dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations
of text.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and
subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read
with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate
contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold
formatting is evident.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 12 of 14about:srcdoc
Language Use and Audience Awareness 3.4 points
Criteria Description
Includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.
5. Target 3.4 points
The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and
word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose,
discipline, and scope.
4. Acceptable 2.89 points
The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate
vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to
communicate clearly.
3. Approaching 2.55 points
Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part.
2. Insufficient 2.21 points
Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice
are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech
appropriately.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident.
Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates
writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 13 of 14about:srcdoc
Mechanics of Writing 4.25 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use
5. Target 4.25 points
No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence
structure are used throughout.
4. Acceptable 3.61 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence
structure are used.
3. Approaching 3.19 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally
appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Insufficient 2.76 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in
language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect
language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.
7/12/25, 5:20 PM
Page 14 of 14about:srcdoc
Format/Documentation 6.8 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;
documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,
appropriate to assignment and discipline.
5. Target 6.8 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present.
4. Acceptable 5.78 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
3. Approaching 5.1 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some
obvious errors.
2. Insufficient 4.42 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent
errors in documentation of sources are evident.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.
Total 85 points
© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
– 1
– 2