KCM1 Task 3 (AFT2): Accreditation Audit, Tracer Methodology Guide

Updated on: Sep 3, 2026

What KCM1 Task 3 Actually Requires

KCM1 Task 3, WGU’s course code AFT2, maps to a single competency: 705.3.4, Patient Care Improvement. It’s smaller and more specific than most guides describe. You’re given one tracer patient’s care record in the “Accreditation Audit Case Study, Task 3 Artifacts,” and the task has exactly two moving parts:

1. Discuss one outstanding patient care issue for the organization, made evident by that tracer patient
2. Develop a corrective action plan for it, built specifically using a keyword search in the Joint Commission’s electronic manual

KCM1 TASK 3 Assignment

Introduction

In this task, you will use a tracer methodology to track a patient’s care in order to evaluate the healthcare organization’s systems of providing care and services for a readiness audit. This methodology also makes it possible to assess the healthcare organization’s compliance with Joint Commission standards. This is part of the organization’s compliance with delivering safe, quality healthcare.

You will examine data for a patient that is found in the attached “Accreditation Audit Case Study – Task 3 Artifacts” and find any trends, patterns, and problems. Once these have been identified, you can remediate the concerns.

Requirements

Your submission must represent your original work and understanding of the course material. Most performance assessment submissions are automatically scanned through the WGU similarity checker. Students are strongly encouraged to wait for the similarity report to generate after uploading their work and then review it to ensure Academic Authenticity guidelines are met before submitting the file for evaluation. See Understanding Similarity Reports for more information.

Grammarly Note:

Professional Communication will be automatically assessed through Grammarly for Education in most performance assessments before a student submits work for evaluation. Students are strongly encouraged to review the Grammarly for Education feedback prior to submitting work for evaluation, as the overall submission will not pass without this aspect passing. See Use Grammarly for Education Effectively for more information.

Microsoft Files Note:

Write your paper in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) unless another Microsoft product, or pdf, is specified in the task directions. Tasks may notbe submitted as cloud links, such as links to Google Docs, Google Slides, OneDrive, etc. All supporting documentation, such as screenshots and proof of experience, should be collected in a pdf file and submitted separately from the main file. For more information, please see Computer System and Technology Requirements.

You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course.

A. Review the tracer patient information from the attached Accreditation Audit Case Study – Task 3 Artifacts and do the following:

1. 1. Discuss an outstanding patient care issue for the organization made evident by the tracer
   2. Develop a corrective action plan to address the patient care improvement needs for the organization using a keyword search in the Joint Commission electronic

B. Acknowledge sources, using in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or

C. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission

Course and Assignment Overview

The Actual Rubric

Unlike the more elaborate five-competency frameworks floating around online, this task’s rubric has exactly four aspects.

Missing the keyword search step specifically is one of the fastest ways to land on Approaching Competence for A2, even when the corrective action plan itself reads well. It’s graded as part of the plan, not as a footnote.

Step-by-Step Guide

Step 1: Download and Read the Tracer Patient Artifacts

The Task 3 artifacts are separate from the Task 1 general artifacts, and separate from the Task 1 case study files if you’ve already completed that task. Open the Task 3 specific file and read the patient’s full roadmap: every department, handoff, and touchpoint the patient moved through.

Step 2: Trace the Patient’s Path and Flag Anything Off

As you follow the roadmap, note anything that looks like a deviation, a delay, a missed step, or a documentation gap. You’re looking for patterns, not a single dramatic error. The rubric calls this “an outstanding patient care issue,” meaning the one that stands out most clearly from the evidence in front of you, not necessarily the most severe one in the abstract.

Step 3: Discuss the Issue With Sufficient Detail (A1)

Once you’ve identified the issue, write it up the way the rubric wants: name it specifically, point to exactly where in the patient’s roadmap it shows up, and explain why it matters for patient care. “Sufficient detail” here means an evaluator should be able to trace your discussion back to a specific point in the artifacts, not a general statement about the organization’s practices.

Step 4: Run a Keyword Search in the Joint Commission Electronic Manual (A2)

This is the step almost every other guide on this topic skips. Take the issue you identified in Step 3 and search for it directly in the Joint Commission’s official electronic accreditation manual, using keywords tied to the specific care issue (for example, terms related to medication reconciliation, handoff communication, or infection control, depending on what you found). The standard you locate this way becomes the anchor for your corrective action plan. Naming a standard without showing that it came from an actual search of the manual is a common reason this section reads as thin.

Step 5: Build the Corrective Action Plan

Tie your plan directly to the standard you found in Step 4. Cover what changes, who’s responsible, and how the organization would verify the issue is resolved. Keep it specific to the tracer patient’s situation rather than a generic policy recommendation.

Step 6: Cite Your Sources (B)

Every claim you didn’t originate yourself needs an in-text citation and a matching reference list entry in APA 7, including the Joint Commission manual itself.

Step 7: Run Grammarly for Education (C)

This is required and will block your submission if it’s not completed. Give the whole paper one more read for tone and clarity after the Grammarly pass.

Common Reasons Students Land on Approaching Competence

FAQ

How is KCM1 Task 3 different from KCM1 Task 1? Kcm1 task 1 (Accreditation Audit, AFT2) has you build an executive summary and corrective action plan from organization-wide case study artifacts. Kcm1 task 3 narrows the focus to one tracer patient and requires the Joint Commission keyword search step specifically. They share a topic area but are graded on different rubrics.

What comes before and after KCM1 Task 3? Kcm1 task 2 is a root cause analysis assignment that typically comes before Task 3 in sequence. After Task 3, some course catalogs include a kcm1 task 4, which builds on the compliance and audit skills developed across the earlier tasks. Confirm your own course’s sequence, since catalog versions vary.

What is tracer methodology in KCM1 Task 3, specifically? It’s the practice of following one patient’s actual care path through an organization to see where compliance holds up and where it doesn’t. In this task, you don’t need to explain tracer methodology in the abstract, you need to apply it to the one patient in your Task 3 artifacts.

Do I need a specific page count for KCM1 Task 3? The task itself doesn’t specify a minimum page count. Depth on the two required elements, the issue discussion and the corrective action plan, matters more than hitting any particular length.

Can I reuse my Task 1 corrective action plan format for Task 3? The five-component structure (problem, action, owner, timeline, measurement) still works well here, but Task 3’s plan has to be traceable to a standard you found through the Joint Commission keyword search, which Task 1 doesn’t require in the same way.

Related WGU Guides

• KCM1 Task 1: Accreditation Audit guide
• WGU C203 Task 1 (MAM1): Personal Leadership Assessment guide
• WGU C210 MKM1 Task 1 guide
• KLM2 Task 1: Global Strategic Marketing Plan guide
• EHM2 Task 1: Ethical Theories and Leadership guide
• DCM2 Task 2: Organizational Leadership Analysis guide
• WGU C207 Task 1: Linear Regression guide + example
• WGU C207 Task 2 guide
• D473 guide

Message us on WhatsApp now → Send your tracer patient artifacts, the issue you’ve identified, or just your deadline. We’ll tell you exactly where you stand before you submit.