Identify a healthcare organisation for the case study analysis/report. You are required to confirm with your tutor when selecting the case to ensure the availability of publicly available information.

Programme

MBA Healthcare Management

Module Title

Financial Performance Management in Healthcare

Module Code

RBP-L111-0

Module Level

7

Assessment Type

Weighting

Submission type, format, word length, where to submit, etc

Submission due date and when feedback is due to students

Summative 1

15%

MCQ test 1 (open book 1 hour) Submit on Moodle Quiz

Submit by 5 pm on XXXX Feedback 5 pm on XXXX

Summative 2

15%

MCQ test 2 (open book 1 hour) Submit on Moodle Quiz

Submit by 5 pm on XXXX Feedback 5 pm on XXXX

Summative 3

70%

3,500-word case study analysis/report

Submit on Moodle Turnitin

Submit by 2 pm on XXXX Feedback 6 pm on XXXX

Learning Outcomes

This assessment has been designed to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your achievement of the following learning outcomes.

By successfully completing this assessment, you will be able to:

• understand and apply a range of financial performance management techniques to analyse financial results, plan, manage and control financial performance,
• manage the source and use of finance,
  • manage and report both financial and non-financial performance in healthcare organisations.

Employability and Professional Skills

This assessment has been designed to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your achievement of the following skills, which are critical in professional contexts and jobs.

By successfully completing this assessment, you will be able to:

• use financial and non-financial data to analyse and manage healthcare organisational performance.
• enhance your problem-solving and decision-making skills while using information and knowledge effectively.

Assessment Requirements Summative Assessment 1

Type of assessment:

MCQ test 1

Weighting

15%

Assessment Deadline

Week 6 – 5 pm on Friday, 7th Nov 2025.

Instructions for assessment

The online Multiple Choices Questions (MCQ) tests are computer-presented tests, and you will access the tests on the Moodle page. This online test is an open-book test, and you must complete each test within one uninterrupted hour during the quiz open period. Please refer to the information published on the Moodle page for the tests’ opening and closing times.

Mode of submission

Moodle Quiz

Summative Assessment 2

Summative Assessment 3

Type of assessment:

Report

Weighting

70%

Assessment Deadline

2 pm on XXXX

Instructions for assessment

Identify a healthcare organisation for the case study analysis/report. You are required to confirm with your tutor when selecting the case to ensure the availability of publicly available information. The chosen case can provide healthcare service in various settings, including hospitals, ambulatory (outpatient), long-term care or integrated delivery systems.

Please note: St George’s University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Croydon Health Services NHS Trust are NOT allowed to be selected as your case!

The assignment should include the following:

Introduction: Introduce the selected healthcare organisations’ operational overview, including the healthcare service provided, the legal form of the business, organisational goals, and the payers of the service provided. Provide an outline of what is covered in the following sections of this report.

Kaplan, R.S. (2009) Conceptual foundations of the balanced scorecard. Handbooks of management accounting research, 3, pp.1253-1269.

Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P. (2007). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management                              System.                              Available                              at: https://download.microsoft.com/documents/uk/peopleready/Using%20the%20Bala nced%20Scorecard%20as%20a%20Strategic%20Management%20System.pdf

Voelker, K. E., Rakich, J. S. and French, G. R. (2001) “The Balanced Scorecard in Healthcare Organizations: A Performance Measurement and Strategic Planning Methodology,” Hospital topics, 79(3), pp. 13–24.

ESG and Integrated Reporting

Cavicchi, C., Oppi, C. and Vagnoni, E. (2019) “On the Feasibility of Integrated Reporting in Healthcare: A Context Analysis Starting from a Management Commentary,” Journal of Management and Governance, 23(2), pp. 345–371.

Grant Thornton (2023), Creating an ESG strategy at healthcare organizations. Available at: https://www.grantthornton.com/insights/articles/health-care/2023/creating-an-esg-strategy- at-healthcare-organizations

IFRS Foundation (2013). International Integrated Reporting <IR> Framework. Available at: https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/ir-framework/

KPMG (2023), ESG Reporting in Healthcare: Driving a Connection to Health Outcomes. Available at: https://info.kpmg.us/news-perspectives/advancing-the-profession/audit- insights/esg-reporting-in-healthcare.html

Marasca, S. et al. (2020) “The How and Why of Integrated Reporting in a Public Health Care Organization: The Stakeholders` Perspective,” Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(4), pp. 1714–1722

Nasdaq (2019), ESG Reporting Guide, Available at: https://www.nasdaq.com/ESG-Guide

PWC (2023) How health organizations can integrate ESG priorities. Available at: https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/health-industries/library/esg-health- industry.html#:~:text=ESG%20principles%20should%20be%20embedded,such%20as%2 0through%20green%20chemistry

Mode of submission

Moodle Turnitin

Marking Criteria

Summative Assessments 1 and 2:

The marks of online test 1 and online test 2 will be released automatically once the online test is closed.

Summative Assessment 3:

Your case study analysis/report will be assessed by a subject expert who will use the marking criteria provided in the Marking rubric enclosed in the Appendix for this module assessment brief. When you access your marked work, it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to improve future assignments.

Between handing in your work and receiving your feedback and marks within 15 working days, there are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks that reflect their work. A brief summary is provided below.

• Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree on standards, expectations and how feedback will be provided.
• Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brief.
• Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback.
• Step Four – The Work then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair.
• Stop Five – Your mark and feedback are processed by the Office and made available to you.

Assessment Success Guidance Summative Assessment 1 and 2:

• You are recommended to complete the practice - online quiz 1 under the Activities and Readings section before you attempt this formal test!
• Please remember that you must sit the Online Test uninterrupted for one hour. Make sure you have a stable and reliable internet connection and that your device is fully charged.
• You should start the online test at least one hour before the quiz closes.

Summative Assessment 3:

• Please share your choice of healthcare organisation (the name and organisation`s website) by clicking Add discussion topic via the Forum.

Please note:

1.     St George’s University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Croydon Health Services NHS Trust are NOT allowed to be selected as your case.

2.     Health/medical insurance companies are not recommended because the specific financial reporting standards for such organisations are not covered in this module.

• Please read this Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document about the case study analysis report uploaded on the Moodle Assessment Information section for writing tips and guidance
• You are recommended to use this ratio analysis template on the Moodle site under the Assessment Information section for your ratio calculation.
• Exemplars are provided on the Moodle site under the Assessment Information section

Assessment Guidance and Support

You are welcome to seek oral feedback on your work in progress.

There will also be regular opportunities for QCA on your summative work while it is under construction. Note, however, that we will not provide any written or marks indicative feedback on drafts for summative assessment at any time. Should you perceive any formative feedback in such a way, then please note that it is not binding for your marking. Markers can also always change, and you have no entitlement to be marked by the module convener or tutors.

Contact for Queries

If you need any further information about the assessment, please use the following contact details:

For academic issue: Dr Tingting SONG - Module Leader Tingting.Song@roehampton.ac.uk For admi issue: PG Academic Service Team BusinessPG@roehampton.ac.uk

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

You are welcome to use AI to support learning and preparation for assessments. When completing summative assessments 1 and 2 (MCQ tests), you must NOT use AI.

When completing summative assessment 3 (case study analysis report), you must verify the source generated by AI and acknowledge any use of AI and appropriately cite all AI-generated outputs. Please make sure you read and understand the assessment guidelines and ask your Module Leader if you have any questions.

*You can find the student guidance on the use of AI in the Library and Nest.

Referencing

You must use the Harvard System.

Academic integrity and honesty are fundamental to any assessment a student submits for marking at the University of Roehampton. Submissions for assessment must be your own original work, where the ideas and the data of others, whenever included, must be referenced accurately. The University can detect academic dishonesty in all its forms, including via the Turnitin similarity score mechanism. You can submit your work early to Turnitin to get a similarity score and check if you need to amend your work. Also, make sure you follow the correct Harvard referencing guidelines. Check the guide in the Library.

Learn about how to avoid penalties by going to the University of Roehampton Library Referencing C Academic Integrity at Roehampton, and completing the tutorial “Understanding Academic Integrity and Plagiarism".

Mitigating circumstances/late penalties

Sometimes, circumstances outside of your control may affect your studies and might prevent you from submitting work on time or attending an exam.

The University offers the ability for students to request additional time to complete an

assessment or to defer an examination to a later date. If you are finding yourself in such a situation, please speak to your Academic Guidance Tutor, the Roehampton Student Union

(RSU) or someone in the Wellbeing teamfirst, who can support you. Further details can be found on the Mitigating Circumstances Portal.

If you do not apply for or are not approved for Mitigating Circumstances, late penalties will apply. If work is submitted up to 14 days late, the mark will be capped at 40%/50% (delete as appropriate); if it is over 14 days late, it will not be marked.

Note: Self-Certification and Extensions are not available for the MCQ test. Students requiring mitigating circumstances for the MCQ test will need to Defer instead.

Resubmissions and Reassessment

If you are required to resubmit this assessment or take part in reassessment, you will be notified via Moodle and your student email. Please ensure you check both regularly. Any reassessment tasks will follow the same learning outcomes and criteria.

You are only allowed to resit the failed component when the overall mark is a failure.

For the online MCQ tests 1 and 2, you are required to re-sit another set of MCQs via specific links on the Moodle site.

For the case study analysis report, you are required to improve and resubmit your original work. You must resubmit your work using the specific re-sit Turnitin link on Moodle. The general resit marking criteria will apply.

Submission Checklist

Before you submit, ask yourself:

• Have I fully answered the assessment brief?
• Have I met the word count and formatting requirements?
• Is my referencing complete and accurate?
• Have I declared any AI use honestly?
• Have I proofread my work?
• Am I submitting through the correct platform before the deadline?

Knowledge 50%

Cannot be improved on.

Outstanding efforts at the introduction of the selected healthcare organisation’s operational overview.

Outstanding efforts at the ratio calculations.

Outstanding presentation of ratio results.

Outstanding efforts at the statement of the organisation’s vision and strategy.

Outstanding proposal on each perspective of the Balanced Scorecard with reasonable KPIs. Outstanding efforts at the summary of the strengths and areas that need improvement of the selected organisation.

Excellent efforts at the introduction of the selected healthcare organisation’s operational overview.

Excellent efforts at the ratio calculations.

Excellent presentation of ratio results.

Excellent efforts at the statement of the organisation’s vision and strategy.

Excellent proposal on each perspective of the Balanced Scorecard with reasonable KPIs. Excellent efforts at the summary of the strengths and areas that need improvement of the selected organisation.

Excellent efforts at the introduction of the selected healthcare organisation’s operational overview.

Excellent efforts at the ratio calculations.

Excellent presentation of ratio results.

Excellent efforts at the statement of the organisation’s vision and strategy.

Excellent proposal on each perspective of the Balanced Scorecard with reasonable KPIs.

Excellent efforts at the summary of the strengths and areas that need improvement of the selected organisation.

Good efforts at the introduction of the selected healthcare organisation’s operational overview.

Good efforts at the ratio calculations. Good presentation of ratio results.

Good efforts at the statement of the organisation’s vision and strategy.

Good proposal on each perspective of the Balanced Scorecard with reasonable KPIs.

Good efforts at the summary of the strengths and areas that need improvement of the selected organisation.

Adequate efforts at the introduction of the selected healthcare organisation’s operational overview.

Adequate efforts at the ratio calculations.

Adequate presentation of ratio results.

Adequate efforts at the statement of the organisation’s vision and strategy.

Adequate proposal on each perspective of the Balanced Scorecard with reasonable KPIs.

Adequate efforts at the summary of the strengths and areas that need improvement of the selected organisation.

Limited efforts at the introduction of the selected healthcare organisation’s operational overview.

Limited efforts at the ratio calculations.

Limited presentation of ratio results.

Limited efforts at the statement of the organisation’s vision and strategy.

Limited proposal on each perspective of the Balanced Scorecard with reasonable KPIs.

Limited efforts at the summary of the strengths and areas that need improvement of the selected organisation.

Poor efforts at the introduction of the selected healthcare organisation’s operational overview.

Poor efforts at the ratio calculations. Poor presentation of ratio results. Poor efforts at the statement of the organisation’s vision and strategy.

Poor proposal on each perspective of the Balanced Scorecard with reasonable KPIs.

Poor efforts at the summary of the strengths and areas that need improvement

of the selected organisation.

No efforts at the introduction of the selected healthcare organisation’s operational overview.

No efforts at the ratio calculations.

No presentation of ratio results. No efforts at the statement of the organisation’s vision and strategy.

No proposal on each perspective of the Balanced Scorecard with reasonable KPIs.

No efforts at the summary of the strengths and areas that need improvement of the selected organisation.

Missing or wrong.

Analysis 40%

Cannot be improved on.

Outstanding comparative evaluation of the performance based on two years of calculation results. Outstanding discussion and explanation of the findings with arguments supported by a wide range of relevant tables, graphics, and literature.

Outstanding justification of the information reported supported by a wide range of relevant material selected from appropriate, authoritative sources.

Outstanding efforts at the critical discussion on the role of ESG factors in promoting sustainable practices within healthcare organisations.

Outstanding critical analysis of the benefits and challenges of

adopting IR.

Excellent comparative evaluation of the performance based on two years of calculation results. Excellent discussion and explanation of the findings with arguments supported by a wide range of relevant tables, graphics, and literature.

Excellent justification of the information reported supported by a wide range of relevant material selected from appropriate, authoritative sources.

Excellent efforts at the critical discussion on the role of ESG factors in promoting sustainable practices within healthcare organisations.

Excellent critical analysis of the benefits and challenges of

adopting IR.

Excellent comparative evaluation of the performance based on two years of calculation results.

Excellent discussion and explanation of the findings with arguments supported by a wide range of relevant tables, graphics, and literature.

Excellent justification of the information reported supported by a wide range of relevant material selected from appropriate, authoritative sources.

Excellent efforts at the critical discussion on the role of ESG factors in promoting sustainable practices within healthcare organisations. Excellent critical analysis of the

benefits and challenges of

Good comparative evaluation of the performance based on two years of calculation results.

Good discussion and explanation of the findings with arguments supported by a wide range of relevant tables, graphics, and literature.

Good justification of the information reported supported by a wide range of relevant material selected from appropriate, authoritative sources.

Good efforts at the critical discussion on the role of ESG factors in promoting sustainable practices within healthcare organisations. Good critical analysis of the benefits and challenges of

adopting IR.

Adequate comparative evaluation of the performance based on two years of calculation results.

Adequate discussion and explanation of the findings with arguments supported by a wide range of relevant tables, graphics, and literature.

Adequate justification of the information reported supported by a wide range of relevant material selected from appropriate, authoritative sources.

Adequate efforts at the critical discussion on the role of ESG factors in promoting sustainable practices within healthcare organisations. Adequate critical analysis of the

benefits and challenges of

Limited comparative evaluation of the performance based on two years of calculation results.

Limited discussion and explanation of the findings with arguments supported by a wide range of relevant tables, graphics, and literature.

Limited justification of the information reported supported by a wide range of relevant material selected from appropriate, authoritative sources.

Limited efforts at the critical discussion on the role of ESG factors in promoting sustainable practices within healthcare organisations.

Limited critical analysis of the benefits and

challenges of

Poor comparative evaluation of the performance based on two years of calculation results.

Poor discussion and explanation of the findings with arguments supported by a wide range of relevant tables, graphics, and literature.

Poor justification of the information reported supported by a wide range of relevant material selected from appropriate, authoritative sources.

Poor efforts at the critical discussion on the role of ESG factors in promoting

sustainable practices

No comparative evaluation of the performance based on two years of calculation results.

No discussion and explanation of the findings with arguments supported by a wide range of relevant tables, graphics, and literature.

No justification of the information reported supported by a wide range of relevant material selected from appropriate, authoritative sources.

No efforts at the critical discussion on the role of ESG factors in promoting sustainable practices within healthcare organisations. No critical analysis of the benefits and challenges of adopting IR.

No selection of

Missing or wrong.