This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
1. Clinical ReasoningClinical Reasoning Cycle is applied to the case analysis
|
5
PtsExceeds Expectation Outstanding - superior achievement against this criteria. The steps of the Clinical Reasoning Cycle are clearly and accurately applied to support the logical and thorough analysis of the case study.
|
3.5
PtsMeets Expectations Good achievement against this criteria. The steps of the Clinical Reasoning Cycle are clearly applied to support a considered analysis of the case study; there may be some minor errors in application of concepts.
|
2.5
PtsSatisfactory Satisfactory achievement against this criteria. There is evidence of application of the steps of the Clinical Reasoning Cycle to analyse the case, there is some repetition, errors or lack of clarity across some areas; further familiarity and practice with clinical reasoning will strengthen your work and analysis in the future.
|
1
PtsBelow Expectations The steps of the Clinical Reasoning Cycle are not clearly applied or identifiable within the case analysis. Please review the assessment task requirements and revise clinical reasoning, and be sure to clarify your understanding of assessments with the teaching team during your assessment planning phase.
|
|
5
pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
2. Health assessment & identifying cues of concernUse health assessment techniques (looking, listening and feeling) to accurately identify and describe the health cues of concern specific to the case. Use literature to support your discussion/analysis of your findings and approach to health assessment techniques.
|
7.5
PtsExceeds Expectations Outstanding - superior achievement against this criteria. Holistic health assessment techniques are articulately described and linked to the cues of concern identified from the case. The cues identified are accurate, clearly articulated and demonstrate a comprehensive consideration of the wellbeing of the person.
|
5.5
PtsMeets Expectations Good achievement against this criteria. Relevant holistic health assessment techniques are for the most part clearly described and linked to cues of concern identified from the case. The cues identified are accurate and demonstrate sound consideration of the wellbeing of the person.
|
3.75
PtsSatisfactory Satisfactory achievement against this criteria. Health assessment techniques are described and linked to cues of concern identified from the case, however may lack holistic considerations. The cues identified are for the most part accurate and demonstrate satisfactory foundational understanding of the wellbeing of the person; there may be some repetition/lack of specificity in the cues identified
|
3
PtsBelow Expectations Approach to health assessment techniques is insufficiently described and/or does not link to relevant cues; cues identified are general rather than specific cues of concern related to the case provided/and or include significant repetition; cues identified are not related to the wellbeing of the person.
|
|
7.5
pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
3. Health interview questionsFormulate/design five (5) health interview questions which further investigate the cues of concern that you have identified. These questions should be sensitive to the person's individuality, stage of life and health literacy.
|
5
PtsExceeds Expectation Outstanding - superior achievement against this criteria. Sophisticated questions which are likely to gather more information to inform your assessment. Questions explore cues of concern in a therapeutic way where the individuality of the person, their stage of life and health literacy are considered and integrated.
|
3.5
PtsMeets Expectations Good achievement against this criteria. Well developed questions which are likely to gather more information to inform your assessment. Questions explore cues of concern in a therapeutic way where the individuality of the person, their stage of life and health literacy are considered for the most part.
|
2.5
PtsSatisfactory Satisfactory achievement against this criteria. Questions are adequate to explore cues of concern in a therapeutic way, however may lack clarity or specificity. Questions require further development and crafting to integrated elements of the individuality of the person, their stage of life and/or health literacy.
|
1
PtsBelow Expectations Does not include any questions or includes fewer than 5 questions; or the questions included are not sufficiently detailed or focused on the case to further inform a health assessment. Questions require significant development to explore the cues of concern with a therapeutic/safe approach.
|
|
5
pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
4. Health issue/problemUsing the cues gathered for the specific patient case, identify and describe one (1) actual health issue/problem statement that indicates deterioration that is evident in the patient case, use evidence from literature to support your analysis
|
5
PtsExceeds Expectation Outstanding - superior achievement against this criterion, demonstrating accuracy and strong evidence of logical clinical reasoning at a foundational level to formulate a health issue/problem statement related to deterioration with a valid rationale
|
3.5
PtsMeets Expectations Good achievement against this criterion, for the most part demonstrating accuracy and sound evidence of foundational clinical reasoning to formulate a health issue/problem statement related to deterioration, with a valid rationale.
|
2.5
PtsSatisfactory Satisfactory achievement against this criterion. The health issue described is relevant to the case and there is some evidence of foundational clinical reasoning to formulate the health issue/problem statement with a rationale (which could use further development, consideration or specific links to the case). The health deterioration issue outlined may be general in description rather than specific to the case particulars.
|
1
PtsBelow Expectations Unsatisfactory achievement against this criterion, demonstrating inaccuracy AND/OR unclear understanding or lack of recognition of health deterioration AND/OR insufficient specific links to the case.
|
|
5
pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
5. Goal of care & therapeutic actionsRelated to the health deterioration identified, develop one (1) goal and foundational therapeutic actions which work to achieve the goal, use evidence from literature to support your recommendations.
|
5
PtsExceeds Expectation Outstanding - superior achievement against this criterion. A specific logically developed and clearly described nursing goal statement which relates directly to the health deterioration cited. The foundational therapeutic actions recommended are supported by credible evidence from health literature to validate that they are safe, therapeutic in nature and promote wellbeing.
|
3.5
PtsMeets Expectations Good achievement against this criterion. A logically developed and well described nursing goal statement which relates directly to the health deterioration cited. The foundational therapeutic actions recommended are for the most part, supported by credible evidence from health literature to validate that they are safe, therapeutic in nature and promote wellbeing.
|
2.5
PtsSatisfactory Satisfactory achievement against this criterion. A nursing goal statement is included and is linked to the health deterioration identified but may lack clarity or specificity. The therapeutic actions draw on evidence from health literature (may be limited or variable quality) to validate that they are safe and therapeutic in nature. Further depth in consideration of the case, and links between the goal and the therapeutic actions, AND/OR additional use of evidence to support discussion would strengthen the quality of this work.
|
1
PtsBelow Expectations Unsatisfactory achievement against this criterion, demonstrating inadequate/insufficient foundational understanding to develop an appropriate nursing goal which links to the cues and health deterioration identified. It is not clear that evidence from literature has been used to inform discussion related to therapeutic actions to achieve the nursing goal.
|
|
5
pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
6. Critical ThinkingFoundational critical thinking is evident in the student analysis of the case
|
5
PtsExceeds Expectation Outstanding -superior achievement against this criterion, demonstrating sophisticated critical thinking to develop and analyse the chosen case study; beyond what is expected of a first year student.
|
3.5
PtsMeets Expectations Good achievement against this criterion, demonstrating sound critical thinking for the most part, to develop and anayse the chosen case study.
|
2.5
PtsSatisfactory Satisfactory achievement against this criterion, demonstrating some evidence of foundational critical thinking within the case analysis. Critical thinking will continue to develop with further theoretical preparation across your program. Reading more widely, and deliberate practice at the intellectual skills of critical thinking will strengthen your work.
|
1
PtsBelow Expectations Unsatisfactory achievement against this criterion, demonstrating no or very limited evidence of critical thinking, ie there is a lack of logical thought process, analysis or explanation of foundational concepts. Clarifying assessment expectations, reading more widely, and deliberate practice at the intellectual skills of critical thinking will support your development.
|
|
5
pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
7a. Scholarly approach - acknowledgement of sourcesIntext referencing and reference list formatting in APA 7th edition style
|
2.5
PtsExceeds Expectations APA 7th referencing style is applied, no referencing errors in text or reference list.
|
2
PtsMeets Expectations APA 7th edition referencing style is applied, some errors in intext citations and/or reference list.
|
1.25
PtsSatisfactory APA 7th referencing style is used inconsistently, with errors, however an attempt is made to correctly acknowledge sources.
|
0
PtsBelow Expectations Incorrect application of APA 7th edition referencing style resulting in inadequate acknowledgement of sources and risk of breaching academic integrity/plagiarism.
|
|
2.5
pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
7b. Scholarly approach - formatting and word countDeveloped in report style, adherence to word count 1500words +/- 10% (inclusive of intext citations, excludes reference list). Submission is formatted using Times New Roman or Calibri 12 font and double spaced with 2.54cm 'normal' margins.
|
2.5
PtsExceeds Expectations Adheres to the word limits and submission formatting. A very high quality, polished submission.
|
2
PtsMeets Expectations Adheres to the word limits, and submission formatting is mostly correct, errors do not detract significantly from the academic quality of the submission.
|
1.25
PtsSatisfactory Adheres to the word limits and submission formatting is satisfactory, however, additional attention to detail would support a more logical flow of content and a more professional submission.
|
0
PtsBelow Expectations Word counts not adhered to AND/OR formatting of work is not in report style AND/OR formatting of work impedes clarity of message and demonstrates a lack of attention to detail.
|
|
2.5
pts
|
This criterion is linked to a learning outcome
7c. Scholarly approach - writingSophisticated academic writing style. Professional terminology is used throughout. No errors with grammar, punctuation or spelling.
|
2.5
PtsExceeds Expectations Adheres to the word limits and submission formatting. A very high quality, polished submission.
|
2
PtsMeets Expectations Well developed academic writing style. Some errors with grammar, punctuation, and spelling which would benefit from some further editing and revision to improve academic quality.
|
1.25
PtsSatisfactory Developing academic writing style. Consistent errors with grammar, punctuation and/or spelling which detract from the clarity of the work, however key points are still adequately communicated to the reader. Significant editing and revision required to improve the academic quality of the work.
|
0
PtsBelow Expectations Underdeveloped academic writing style. Errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling detract significantly from the clarity of the writing so that ideas and understanding of concepts cannot be communicated clearly to the reader. Thorough editing and revision is required to achieve satisfactorily in this criteria.
|
|
2.5
pts
|
Total points:
40
|