Part 1: Injury & Incident Management System and Worker Compensation Process

Evaluate, plan, design & implement ?

Injury & incident management system ?

Workers compensation process ?

In the end, what was wrong with you?

Did you ask for stress leave?

How long were you off work?

Did anyone from your work contact you while you were off?

What were your feelings about work while you were unwell?

Individual Portfolio Weighting: 40% Wordcount: 1500 words The Portfolio has 3 parts. ? In Parts 1 and 2 you will respond as if you were in the role of Peter’s manager. ? In Part 3 you will have an opportunity to develop your managerial experience. Read Case Study 2 and address each part of the Portfolio.

Injury & Incident Management system and Worker Compensation process (30 marks and approximately 500 words) In this section of the Portfolio; a) Plan and design an Injury & Incident Management system flowchart template for the healthcare organisation in the case study, including a Worker Compensation process. The elements of the flow chart should be flexible enough for the organisation to adapt to individual workplace incidents. b) Below the flowchart explain the Injury & Incident Management system and justify the Worker Compensation process.

Implementation of the systems & processes (20 marks and approximately 400 words) Referring to the flowchart in Part 1; ? explain how the systems and processes might be implemented in Peter’s case. 

Evaluate the effectiveness of local and international systems & processes (40 marks and approximately 600 words) Every healthcare organisation will have slightly different systems and processes which will suit their particular context. It is important, as a manager, to have a general overview of other systems and processes from both New Zealand and International  this information is easily available online (remember to reference your source) For Part 3 of the Portfolio; a) Evaluate the systems and processes of the two organisations you have chosen (one local to New Zealand and one International) b) Compare their effectiveness to your own design in Part 1 Five marks will be awarded for APA (6th) referencing and 5 marks will be awarded for English language

Injury & Incident Management System and Worker Compensation process a) Plan and design an Injury and Incident Management System flowchart template for the healthcare organisation in the case study, including a Worker Compensation process. Clear and precise plan and design of the Injury and Incident Management System flowchart template. Worker Compensation process is logical and contains key elements from the flow chart. Satisfactory plan and design of the Injury and Incident Management System flowchart template. Worker Compensation process contains most of the key elements from the flow chart. Plan and design of the Injury and Incident Management System flowchart template has missing key elements. Worker Compensation process contains few of the key elements from the flow chart. Plan and design of the Injury and Incident Management System flowchart template is not relevant to the organisation in the case study. Worker Compensation process is not relevant to the organisation in the case study and/or the flowchart. No attempt to plan and design an Injury and Incident Management System and /or Worker Compensation process for the organisation in the case study.

Design of flowchart template

Injury and Incident Management system Accurate explanation of the The Injury and Incident Limited explanation of the Injury and Explanation of the Injury and Incident No attempt to explain the Injury  explained. Worker Compensation process justified. Injury and Incident Management System. Worker Compensation process clearly and logically justified. Management System is clearly explained. Worker Compensation process is logically justified. Incident Management System Worker Compensation process is justified in general. Management system is incomplete and/or irrelevant. Justification of the Worker Compensation process is either not justified or not relevant. and Incident Management system and/or justify the Worker Compensation process.

Implementation of the systems & processes Explain how the systems and processes might be implemented in Peter’s case. Clear and in-depth explanation of how the systems and processes might be implemented in the context of Peter’s case. Clear explanation of how the systems and processes might be implemented in the context of Peter’s case. An attempt has been made to explain the systems and processes might be implemented in the context of Peter’s case. Explanations of how systems and might be implemented in the context of Peter’s case are not relevant. No attempt to explain how systems and processes might be implemented in the context of Peter’s case.

Evaluate the effectiveness of local and international systems & processes ,Evaluate the systems and processes of the two organisations you have chosen (one local to New Zealand and one International) Comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the systems and processes of two organisations (one local and one International). Logical evaluation of the effectiveness of the systems and processes of two organisations (one local and one International). Evaluates, in general, the effectiveness of the systems and processes of two organisations (one local and one International). Evaluation the effectiveness of systems and processes of two organisations (one local and one International) is not relevant and/or only one organisation is chosen. No attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of systems and processes of two organisations (one local and one International)

Compare the effectiveness of the systems and processes of your two chosen organisations to your own design (in Part 1) Compared, logically and in-depth, the effectiveness of the systems and process of the two chosen organisations to own design in Part 1, with supporting evidence. Compared, the effectiveness of the systems and process of the two chosen organisations to own design in Part 1, with some supporting evidence. General attempt to compare the effectiveness of the systems and process of the two chosen organisations to own design in Part 1, with little supporting evidence. Comparison of the effectiveness of the two organisations to own design is vague and/or not relevant. No attempt to compare the effectiveness of the 2 organisations to own design.

APA (6 th ) referencing is consistently accurate. APA(6 th ) referencing is mainly accurate. APA(6 th ) referencing contains errors. APA(6 th ) Referencing contains multiple fundamental errors that do not accurately No attempt made to reference  Language Standards Fluent language and writing style appropriate to the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling. Language and writing style is mainly fluent. Grammar and spelling mainly accurate. Meaning apparent but language and writing not always fluent. Grammar and/or spelling contain errors. Level of language and writing has frequent grammar and/or spelling mistakes making the meaning unclear. The meaning is not apparent because of the low level of language.