Baldrige Healthcare Scoring Guidelines

2011 - 2012 Baldrige Health Care PROCESS Scoring Guidelines - with Additions Shown

(Note: 2010 BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT (PUBLIC SECTOR) and other NONPROFIT Scoring Guidelines versions are shown below with live hyperlinks to the definitions for key terms indicated by words in ALL CAPS.)

Note: Click on a CAPITALIZED word or letter to go to its definition in the INTEGRATED version of the Baldrige Business, Nonprofit and Public Sector Scoring Guidelines. Although the words are the same, it should not be viewed as endorsed by NIST

2011 - 2012 Baldrige Health Care RESULTS Scoring Guidelines - with Changes Shown (Additions and Deletions)

SCORE

2011 - 2012 Baldrige Health Care RESULTS Scoring Guidelines

0% or 5%

§ There are no organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS and/or poor RESULTS in areas reported. (Le)

§ TREND data either are not reported or show mainly adverse TRENDS. (T)

§ COMPARATIVE information is not reported. (C)

§ RESULTS are not reported for any areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION. (I)
No PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS are reported.

10%, 15%,

20%, or 25%

§ A few organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS are reported; responsive to the BASIC REQUIREMENTS of the Item, and early good PERFORMANCE LEVELS are evident in a few areas. (Le)

§ Some TREND data are reported, with some adverse TRENDS evident. (T)

§ Little or no COMPARATIVE information is reported. (C)

§ RESULTS are reported for a few areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION. (I)
Limited or no PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS are reported.

30%, 35%,

40%, or 45%

§ Good organizational PERFORMANCE LEVELS are reported, for some areas of importance addressed in the Item responsive to the BASIC REQUIREMENTS of the Item. (Le)

§ Some TREND data are reported and a majority of the TRENDS presented are beneficial. (T)

§ Early stages of obtaining COMPARATIVE information are evident. (C)

§ RESULTS are reported for many areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION. (I)
Limited PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS are reported.

50%, 55%,

60%, or 65%

§ Good organizational PERFORMANCE LEVELS are reported for most areas of importance, responsive to the OVERALL REQUIREMENTS of the Item. (Le)

§ Beneficial TRENDS are evident in areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION. (T)

§ Some current PERFORMANCE LEVELS have been evaluated against relevant COMPARISONS and/or BENCHMARKS and show areas of good relative PERFORMANCE. (C)

§ Organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS are reported for most KEY PATIENT and STAKEHOLDER, market, and PROCESS requirements. (I)

PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS for some high-priority RESULTS are reported.

70%, 75%,

80%, or 85%

§ Good to excellent PERFORMANCE LEVELS are reported, for most areas of importance to the Item responsive to the MULTIPLE REQUIREMENTS of the Item. (Le)

§ Beneficial TRENDS have been sustained over time in most areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION. (T)

§ Many to most TRENDS and current PERFORMANCE LEVELS have been evaluated against relevant COMPARISONS and/or BENCHMARKS and show areas of leadership and very good relative PERFORMANCE. (C)

§ Organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS are reported for most KEY PATIENT and STAKEHOLDER, market, span PROCESS, and ACTION PLAN requirements. (I) and they include some PROJECTIONS of your future PERFORMANCE.

90%, 95%, or 100%

§ Excellent organizational PERFORMANCE LEVELS are reported for most areas of importance that are responsive to the MULTIPLE REQUIREMENTS of the Item. (Le)

§ Beneficial TRENDS have been sustained over time in all areas of importance to the accomplishment of your organization’s MISSION. (T)

§ Evidence of industry and BENCHMARK leadership is demonstrated in many areas. (C)

§ Organizational PERFORMANCE RESULTS and projections are reported for most fully address KEY PATIENT and STAKEHOLDER, market, PROCESS, and ACTION PLAN requirements. (I) and they include PROJECTIONS of your future PERFORMANCE.

Note: The Baldrige Scoring Grid (below) has been discontinued.

PROCESS ITEMS Scoring Grid

Item __.__

Factor	0–5%	10–25%	30–45%	50–65%	70–85%	90–100%
A pproach	No systematic approach to Item requirements is evident; information is anecdotal.	The beginning of a systematic approach to the basic requirements of the Item is evident.	An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the basic requirements of the Item, is evident.	An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the overall requirements of the Item, is evident.	An effective, systematic approach, responsive to the multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.	An effective, systematic approach, fully responsive to the multiple requirements of the Item, is evident.
A pproach
D eployment	Little or no deployment of any systematic approach is evident.	The approach is in the early stages of deployment in most areas or work units, inhibiting progress in achieving the basic requirements of the Item.	The approach is deployed, although some areas or work units are in early stages of deployment.	The approach is well deployed, although deployment may vary in some areas or work units.	The approach is well deployed, with no significant gaps.	The approach is fully deployed without significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or work units.
D eployment
L earning	An improvement orientation is not evident; improvement is achieved through reacting to problems.	Early stages of a transition from reacting to problems to a general improvement orientation are evident.	The beginning of a systematic approach to evaluation and improvement of key processes is evident.	A fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement process and some organizational learning, including innovation, are in place for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of key processes.	Fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement and organizational learning, including innovation, are key management tools; there is clear evidence of refinement as a result of organizational-level analysis and sharing.	Fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement and organizational learning through innovation are key organization-wide tools; refinement and innovation, backed by analysis and sharing, are evident throughout the organization.
L earning
I ntegration	No organizational alignment is evident; individual areas or work units operate independently.	The approach is aligned with other areas or work units largely through joint problem solving.	The approach is in the early stages of alignment with basic organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other Process Items.	The approach is aligned with organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other Process Items.	The approach is integrated with organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other Process Items.	The approach is well integrated with organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other Process Items.
I ntegration

Guidance: The overall score is not intended to be a numerical average of the elements above; you should select the range and score that are most descriptive of
the organization’s achievement level for the Item.

Item __.__— Overall Score

□ 0–5%

□ 10–25%

□ 30–45%

□ 50–65%

□ 70–85%

□ 90–100% Item __.__ Score ________%

Introducing the newly released ARTICULATED Criteria with one-click links to all Baldrige terms. Previous versions have been downloaded thousands of times daily worldwide for the simple reason that understanding and ease of use are improved.

See why the A-R-T-I-C-U-L-A-T-E-D Criteria are so popular

The 2011 - 2012 Baldrige Criteria . . . and this is the only place where you can see all the changes highlighted word-by-word

Baldrige Improvement Tools and Resources

Essentials:	*Criteria*	*Core Values*	*Scoring System*	*Feedback Reports*	*Case Studies*	*Glossary of Terms*
Tools:	*Criteria Templates*	*Winners’ Applications*	*Guides to Improvement*	*Metrics* - *Benchmarks*	*Best Systems* - *Best Processes*	*Baldrige Model*
Core Competencies:	*Accelerating Improvement*	*Training*	*Speaking* - *Presenting*	*Assessing*	*Site Visit Preparation*	*Aligning - Integrating*
Special Focus Areas:	*National Award Programs*	*Education*	*Health Care*	*Public Sector*	*Private Sector*	*International*

Special 20th Anniversary Edition Bundle

Guide to a Well-Written Baldrige Application and Site Visit Preparation Guide

MISSION: Accelerating organizational improvement beyond the capabilities of all the Business Excellence approaches combined. Paul Steel

SCORE	2011 - 2012 Baldrige Health Care PROCESS Scoring Guidelines
0% or 5%	No SYSTEMATIC APPROACH to Item requirements is evident; information is ANECDOTAL. (A) Little or no DEPLOYMENT of any SYSTEMATIC APPROACH is evident. (D) An improvement orientation is not evident; improvement is achieved through reacting to problems. (L) No organizational ALIGNMENT is evident; individual areas or work units operate independently. (I)
10%, 15%, 20% or 25%	The beginning of a SYSTEMATIC APPROACH to the BASIC REQUIREMENTS of the Item is evident. (A) The APPROACH is in the early stages of DEPLOYMENT in most areas or work units, inhibiting progress in achieving the BASIC REQUIREMENTS of the Item. (D) Early stages of a transition from reacting to problems to a general improvement orientation are evident. (L) The APPROACH is ALIGNED with other areas or work units largely through joint problem solving. (I)
30%, 35%, 40% or 45%	An EFFECTIVE, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH, responsive to the BASIC REQUIREMENTS of the Item, is evident. (A) The APPROACH is DEPLOYED, although some areas or work units are in early stages of DEPLOYMENT. (D) The beginning of a SYSTEMATIC APPROACH to evaluation and improvement of KEY PROCESSES is evident. (L) The APPROACH is in the early stages of ALIGNMENT with your basic organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other PROCESS Items. (I)
50%, 55%, 60% or 65%	An EFFECTIVE, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH, responsive to the OVERALL REQUIREMENTS of the Item, is evident. (A) The APPROACH is well DEPLOYED, although DEPLOYMENT may vary in some areas or work units. (D) A fact-based, SYSTEMATIC evaluation and improvement PROCESS and some organizational LEARNING, including INNOVATION, are in place for improving the efficiency and EFFECTIVENESS of KEY PROCESSES. (L) The APPROACH is ALIGNED with your organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other PROCESS Items (I)
70%, 75%, 80% or 85%	An EFFECTIVE, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH, responsive to the MULTIPLE REQUIREMENTS of the Item, is evident. (A) The APPROACH is well DEPLOYED, with no significant gaps. Fact-based, SYSTEMATIC evaluation and improvement and organizational LEARNING, including INNOVATION, are KEY management tools; there is clear evidence of refinement as a result of organizational-level ANALYSIS and sharing. The APPROACH is INTEGRATED with your current and future organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other PROCESS Items. (I)
90%, 95% or 100%	An EFFECTIVE, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH, fully responsive to the MULTIPLE REQUIREMENTS of the Item, is evident. (A) The APPROACH is fully DEPLOYED without significant weaknesses or gaps in any areas or work units. (D) Fact-based, SYSTEMATIC evaluation and improvement and organizational LEARNING through INNOVATION are KEY organization-wide tools; refinement and INNOVATION, backed by ANALYSIS and sharing, are evident throughout the organization. (L) The APPROACH is well INTEGRATED with your current and future organizational needs identified in response to the Organizational Profile and other PROCESS Items. (I)