GW4007MV Quality and Safety Assignment Brief 2026 | EUR Netherlands

GW4007MV Assignment Brief

Exam (Resit)

The written exam for this course consists of an individual assignment in the form of a take-home paper. Your task is to write an academic paper with a maximum word count of 2000 words (+/- 10%, excluding cover page and reference list) based on the case provided below. You are required to create your own problem definition and central question; to build a conceptual framework based on four sources of mandatory literature; and to analyze the case by applying that framework together with four additional empirical sources you found. In that process, you need to use and critically reflect on the mandatory course literature. This should be done in light of the different ‘challenges’ as discussed in the course. Finally, you need to discuss your findings in terms of their relation to the literature and their implications for quality work in practice.

Citing, referencing, and formatting should be done in accordance with academic standards.

In this paper you need to substantively include at least four papers from the mandatory literature in your paper. These should include at least two of the following papers: Bromley & Powell 2012; Fitzsimons & Cornwell 2018; Levay & Waks 2009; Clegg et al. 2005.

In this paper you also need to substantively include at least four empirical scientific sources you found yourself (i.e., published and peer-reviewed literature not included in the course and this exam). These sources should be relevant in light of your central question.

Moreover, your paper must include the following elements: 

• A cover page that at least includes a title, your full name, student ID, and word count (excluding cover page and reference list).
• An introduction that includes your problem definition based on the case provided below, the scientific and societal relevance of that problem, and a focused and concise central question that takes into account the scope and method of the paper.
• A coherent conceptual framework that includes the substantive and correct use of at least four sources from the mandatory literature (among which two of the four papers mentioned above). This conceptual (i.e., theoretical) framework should be based on a critical synthesis of the literature you use, and should help you to answer your central question.
• A consistent and reasoned analysis of empirical findings and arguments that helps you to answer your central question. To guide the analysis, your argument should explicitly build on your conceptual framework and logically tie in with the four additional empirical scientific sources you found yourself.
• A conclusion that offers a concise and unambiguous answer to your central question. In doing so, you can provide a short summary of your analysis; however, you should not introduce new empirical data in the conclusion.
• A discussion that relates your conclusion back to your problem definition and the societal and scientific relevance of that problem. Reflect on the implications of your findings for the practice of quality and safety improvement work, and critically relate your findings to your conceptual framework (i.e., reflect on the implications of your findings for the theory you used in your paper). Make sure to substantively include at least two of the challenges from the general framework by Bate et al. (2008) in your discussion.
• A reference list.

We expect a coherent paper in which you develop a consistent argument. This means that implicitly or explicitly, you will need to clarify relations between the different segments of the paper (i.e., your findings, conceptual framework, central question, etc.). We also expect you to properly use and critically reflect on the mandatory course literature and the additional literature you found yourself.

The complete essay needs to be submitted through Canvas before 23:59 on 27 February 2026. Papers submitted after this deadline will not be reviewed or graded. 

Below we provide you with the empirical case you need to work with, and the assessment criteria for the written exam.

Good luck!

Exam Case: Increased aggression in healthcare: measures to protect healthcare workers

Safety in healthcare is under great pressure. Healthcare workers are increasingly confronted with aggression. This is evident from a recent survey by NU’91, the professional organization and trade union for healthcare professionals. The survey of over 1,200 healthcare workers shows that verbal and physical aggression are commonplace. Healthcare institutions in Gelderland are taking measures to better protect their staff.

Increasing aggression in healthcare

Aggression in healthcare takes various forms. A selection of reports from healthcare professionals: death threats, physical intimidation, shouting, and psychological undermining. The figures are alarming: 90 percent of healthcare workers surveyed experienced verbal aggression such as name-calling and shouting in 2024. In addition, 33 percent were physically attacked, 22 percent grabbed or pushed, and 23 percent kicked.

Bodycam pilot at Rijnstate hospital

Rijnstate Hospital in Arnhem is seeing a clear increase in reports of aggression. In 2022, 326 incidents were reported, and in 2024, that number had already reached 430. The coronavirus pandemic has increased aggression, and the situation has only worsened since then, according to a hospital spokesperson. To reduce aggression, Rijnstate launched a pilot program in 2024 in which security guards wear bodycams. The visibility of these cameras has a preventative effect. “When a patient is acting aggressively, simply informing them that the camera is being activated can often help curb their behavior,” says the spokesperson.

Personal experiences

Nurse Ivana, who works at Rijnstate, experiences aggression daily. Although she hasn’t personally experienced physical aggression, she regularly encounters manipulative behavior and threats. “We’re constantly working to de-escalate, but that’s not always successful,” she says. She recalls a situation where a patient chased her in a wheelchair, demanding immediate pain relief. “That’s when I was on edge.” Despite these challenges, Ivana remains motivated by her work. However, she’s noticing that the healthcare population is changing, with more patients struggling with addictions or psychiatric problems. “A lot of aggression stems from a lack of power; people are often in the wrong place.” […]

Conclusion

The rise in aggression in healthcare is a serious concern for healthcare providers and institutions. Various measures are being taken to ensure their safety, from the use of body cameras to protecting personal data. Despite the challenges, many healthcare professionals, like Ivana, continue to work diligently. It is now up to employers and policymakers to ensure they can continue to do their work in a safe environment.

Author: Martijn Lupke

Date: 14 March, 2025

Note: This news report on OKVisie.nl was edited and translated from Dutch.

Source: https://www.okvisie.nl/nieuws/toename-van-agressie-in-de-zorg/

GW4007MV Assessment Criteria

The paper is awarded a maximum score of 100 points (pts). The total score divided by 10 determines the final grade for the paper. The assessment criteria as formulated below are based on the ‘Competent’ column in the HCM/ZoMa Thesis rubric. The bullet points are indicative of the assessment, and are not necessarily equally weighted. The final grade reflects our assessment of the paper as a whole.

Writing

• The paper has a word count of 2000 words (+/- 10%, excluding cover page and reference list);
• All sections of the paper are logically connected with each other (one issue automatically leads to the next), and headings clearly describe the content;
• The paper is easy to read, and an academic writing style is consistent through the whole paper;
• The paper lacks all but minor linguistic and typological errors;
• The reference list is in accordance with an approved reference style;
• In-text references to literature are complete, correct and consistent, using an approved reference style.

Introduction

• Includes relevant background information on the subject matter;
• Adequately justifies the societal relevance of the problem and central question;
• Shows sufficient understanding of the main problem; scientific relevance is adequately addressed;
• Includes a sufficiently clear problem definition (i.e., not too confusing or too complex);
• Includes a sufficiently clear and focused central question (i.e., unambiguous, adequately structured).

Conceptual Framework

• Contains concepts that are sufficiently defined and appropriate, and clearly relate to the literature;
• Contains at least four mandatory sources of literature, including two or more from the following selection: Bromley & Powell 2012; Fitzsimons & Cornwell 2018; Levay & Waks 2009; Clegg et al. 2005. Their use reflects a correct understanding of their substance;
• Shows sufficient (i.e., not tenuous) connection between concepts, and between theory and the problem definition or central question;
• Shows sufficient attempt at synthesis and evaluation;
• A correct and substantive use of additional sources of conceptual literature is excellent.

Analysis

• Connects data and/or arguments to the problem definition, central question, and conceptual framework in a logical and clear manner;
• Shows (a) sufficient understanding of at least four sources of empirical peer-reviewed literature from outside of the course and exam literature, and (b) shows their relevance for the paper’s argument;
• Demonstrates sufficient understanding and application of the conceptual framework (i.e., the various concepts from the mandatory literature).

Conclusion

• Contains a concise and unambiguous answer to the central question;
• Aligns with the objective of the paper;
• Does not introduce new empirical data.

Discussion

• Contains a reflection and problematization of findings; critique on own work is excellent;
• Contains a critical evaluation of the societal relevance of findings (i.e., the relevance of these findings for practices of quality and safety);
• Contains an explicit connection to underlying theory, including two or more challenges from the Bate et al.

framework. The conceptual framework and (empirical) findings are in dialogue. Versatility and creativity in the interpretation of findings are excellent.  

Hire a Professional Essay & Assignment Writer for completing your Academic Assessments

Flexible Rates Compatible With Everyone’s Budget

Order Now