Hi, Please let me know any supporting documents need for this..Thank you
College of SHE School of Nursing and Midwifery NSG2TCD: Template and Marking Rubric - Assessment three Student ID: Date of submission: Word count: TOPIC: Care improvement for a person with dementia admitted to an acute hospital. Criteria Excellent ( A) 80-100% Very Good (B) 70-79% Good (C) 60-69% Fair (D) 50-59% Poor ( N < 50 % ) introduction (5 marks) clearly introduces the key aspects to be discussed in the paper. a concise definition of dementia paraphrased well. 5 marks introduces aspects to be discussed in the paper. a good paraphrasing of the definition of dementia. 4 marks introduces some aspects to be discussed in the paper. an adequate attempt at paraphrasing the definition of dementia. 3 marks introduces few aspects to be discussed in the paper or provides too much information. poor paraphrasing of the definition of dementia. 2 marks introduction not done or inadequate. fails to introduce aspects of the patient’s care. definition of dementia not included or included as a quote. 1 mark content (25 mark) excellent discussion on proposed model of care; two challenges and management; communication strategies and community services available for people with dementia. evidence of clear and consistent synthesis of information. 25 marks very good discussion on proposed model of care; two challenges and management; communication strategies and community services available for people with dementia. some consistent evidence of synthesis of information. 20 marks good discussion on proposed model of care; two challenges and management; communication strategies and community services available for people with dementia. inconsistent evidence of synthesis of information. 15 marks limited discussion on proposed model of care; two challenges and management; communication strategies and community services available for people with dementia. limited evidence of synthesis of information. 10 marks discussion not done or no depth in discussion of proposed model of care; two challenges and management; communication strategies and community services available for people with dementia. no evidence of synthesis of information. 5 marks conclusion (5 marks) concise overview of the assignment highlighting the main priorities and relating them to the care of the patient. does not introduce any new material. 5 marks very good overview of the assignment highlighting the main priorities and relating them to the care of the patient. does not introduce any new material. 4 marks good overview of the assignment highlighting the main priorities and relating them to the care of the patient. may or may not introduce any new material. 3 marks provides a general overview of the paper but demonstrates a limited ability to highlight the main priorities. may or may not introduce any new material. 2 marks conclusion not done or inadequate. introduces new material. 1 mark academic writing (10 marks) information is well organised; using supplied headings, logical organisation of ideas within and between paragraphs. expression is clear & precise & uses an appropriate narrative style. there are no noticeable errors in vocabulary, grammar, spelling, or punctuation. equivalent word count for each section. the provided template with marking rubric has been used. 10 marks expression is clear & uses an appropriate narrative style. occasional minor errors may occur in grammar, spelling, punctuation or vocab choice. equivalent word count for each section. the provided template with marking rubric has been used. used. 8 marks expression is clear but there may be occasional problems with style (e.g., idiomatic language). errors in grammar, vocab, spelling or punctuation are not intrusive & do not interfere with understanding. equivalent word count for each section. the provided template with marking rubric has been used. used. 6 marks errors in grammar, vocabulary, spelling or punctuation sometimes interfere with understanding. inappropriate word count for each section. the provided template with marking rubric was not used. 4 marks style is not at the level of academic work. expression may be limited with the use of a restricted range of vocabulary. errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and/or word choice are intrusive & frequently interferes with the understanding. inappropriate word count for each section. the provided template with marking rubric was not used. 2 marks use of the research literature (in text and end text reference list). (5 marks) inclusion of an appropriate number of relevant and credible (peer-reviewed), references (journal articles, textbooks, credible websites, no lecture notes. all reference material is seamlessly integrated with effective paraphrasing & minimal use of direct quotes. accurate use of apa6 for in-text citations & reference list. 5 marks a good attempt at including an appropriate number of relevant and credible references. a good attempt at seamlessly integrating them into the text. good use of apa6 for in-text citations & reference list. 4 marks inclusion of an appropriate number of references but includes some that are not peer-reviewed or uses lecture notes. shows reasonable attempt to integrate literature with mostly adequate paraphrasing. good use of apa6 for in-text citations & reference list. 3 marks poor use of research literature by including most that are not peer-reviewed or uses lecture. poor integration of literature with poor paraphrasing or overuse of quotes. poor use of apa6 for in-text citations & reference list. 2 marks uses no- credible references throughout paper e.g. wikipedia, better health channel or uses all lecture notes. incorrect or missing integration of literature with poor paraphrasing or overuse of quotes. does not adhere to apa6 format. 1 mark total marks = 50 mark for this assignment: /50 1 50="" %="" )="" introduction="" (5="" marks)="" clearly="" introduces="" the="" key="" aspects="" to="" be="" discussed="" in="" the="" paper.="" a="" concise="" definition="" of="" dementia="" paraphrased="" well.="" 5="" marks="" introduces="" aspects="" to="" be="" discussed="" in="" the="" paper.="" a="" good="" paraphrasing="" of="" the="" definition="" of="" dementia.="" 4="" marks="" introduces="" some="" aspects="" to="" be="" discussed="" in="" the="" paper.="" an="" adequate="" attempt="" at="" paraphrasing="" the="" definition="" of="" dementia.="" 3="" marks="" introduces="" few="" aspects="" to="" be="" discussed="" in="" the="" paper="" or="" provides="" too="" much="" information.="" poor="" paraphrasing="" of="" the="" definition="" of="" dementia.="" 2="" marks="" introduction="" not="" done="" or="" inadequate.="" fails="" to="" introduce="" aspects="" of="" the="" patient’s="" care.="" definition="" of="" dementia="" not="" included="" or="" included="" as="" a="" quote.="" 1="" mark="" content="" (25="" mark)="" excellent="" discussion="" on="" proposed="" model="" of="" care;="" two="" challenges="" and="" management;="" communication="" strategies="" and="" community="" services="" available="" for="" people="" with="" dementia.="" evidence="" of="" clear="" and="" consistent="" synthesis="" of="" information.="" 25="" marks="" very="" good="" discussion="" on="" proposed="" model="" of="" care;="" two="" challenges="" and="" management;="" communication="" strategies="" and="" community="" services="" available="" for="" people="" with="" dementia.="" some="" consistent="" evidence="" of="" synthesis="" of="" information.="" 20="" marks="" good="" discussion="" on="" proposed="" model="" of="" care;="" two="" challenges="" and="" management;="" communication="" strategies="" and="" community="" services="" available="" for="" people="" with="" dementia.="" inconsistent="" evidence="" of="" synthesis="" of="" information.="" 15="" marks="" limited="" discussion="" on="" proposed="" model="" of="" care;="" two="" challenges="" and="" management;="" communication="" strategies="" and="" community="" services="" available="" for="" people="" with="" dementia.="" limited="" evidence="" of="" synthesis="" of="" information.="" 10="" marks="" discussion="" not="" done="" or="" no="" depth="" in="" discussion="" of="" proposed="" model="" of="" care;="" two="" challenges="" and="" management;="" communication="" strategies="" and="" community="" services="" available="" for="" people="" with="" dementia.="" no="" evidence="" of="" synthesis="" of="" information.="" 5="" marks="" conclusion="" (5="" marks)="" concise="" overview="" of="" the="" assignment="" highlighting="" the="" main="" priorities="" and="" relating="" them="" to="" the="" care="" of="" the="" patient.="" does="" not="" introduce="" any="" new="" material.="" 5="" marks="" very="" good="" overview="" of="" the="" assignment="" highlighting="" the="" main="" priorities="" and="" relating="" them="" to="" the="" care="" of="" the="" patient.="" does="" not="" introduce="" any="" new="" material.="" 4="" marks="" good="" overview="" of="" the="" assignment="" highlighting="" the="" main="" priorities="" and="" relating="" them="" to="" the="" care="" of="" the="" patient.="" may="" or="" may="" not="" introduce="" any="" new="" material.="" 3="" marks="" provides="" a="" general="" overview="" of="" the="" paper="" but="" demonstrates="" a="" limited="" ability="" to="" highlight="" the="" main="" priorities.="" may="" or="" may="" not="" introduce="" any="" new="" material.="" 2="" marks="" conclusion="" not="" done="" or="" inadequate.="" introduces="" new="" material.="" 1="" mark="" academic="" writing="" (10="" marks)="" information="" is="" well="" organised;="" using="" supplied="" headings,="" logical="" organisation="" of="" ideas="" within="" and="" between="" paragraphs.="" expression="" is="" clear="" &="" precise="" &="" uses="" an="" appropriate="" narrative="" style.="" there="" are="" no="" noticeable="" errors="" in="" vocabulary,="" grammar,="" spelling,="" or="" punctuation.="" equivalent="" word="" count="" for="" each="" section.="" the="" provided="" template="" with="" marking="" rubric="" has="" been="" used.="" 10="" marks="" expression="" is="" clear="" &="" uses="" an="" appropriate="" narrative="" style.="" occasional="" minor="" errors="" may="" occur="" in="" grammar,="" spelling,="" punctuation="" or="" vocab="" choice.="" equivalent="" word="" count="" for="" each="" section.="" the="" provided="" template="" with="" marking="" rubric="" has="" been="" used.="" used.="" 8="" marks="" expression="" is="" clear="" but="" there="" may="" be="" occasional="" problems="" with="" style="" (e.g.,="" idiomatic="" language).="" errors="" in="" grammar,="" vocab,="" spelling="" or="" punctuation="" are="" not="" intrusive="" &="" do="" not="" interfere="" with="" understanding.="" equivalent="" word="" count="" for="" each="" section.="" the="" provided="" template="" with="" marking="" rubric="" has="" been="" used.="" used.="" 6="" marks="" errors="" in="" grammar,="" vocabulary,="" spelling="" or="" punctuation="" sometimes="" interfere="" with="" understanding.="" inappropriate="" word="" count="" for="" each="" section.="" the="" provided="" template="" with="" marking="" rubric="" was="" not="" used.="" 4="" marks="" style="" is="" not="" at="" the="" level="" of="" academic="" work.="" expression="" may="" be="" limited="" with="" the="" use="" of="" a="" restricted="" range="" of="" vocabulary.="" errors="" in="" grammar,="" spelling,="" punctuation,="" and/or="" word="" choice="" are="" intrusive="" &="" frequently="" interferes="" with="" the="" understanding.="" inappropriate="" word="" count="" for="" each="" section.="" the="" provided="" template="" with="" marking="" rubric="" was="" not="" used.="" 2="" marks="" use="" of="" the="" research="" literature="" (in="" text="" and="" end="" text="" reference="" list).="" (5="" marks)="" inclusion="" of="" an="" appropriate="" number="" of="" relevant="" and="" credible="" (peer-reviewed),="" references="" (journal="" articles,="" textbooks,="" credible="" websites,="" no="" lecture="" notes.="" all="" reference="" material="" is="" seamlessly="" integrated="" with="" effective="" paraphrasing="" &="" minimal="" use="" of="" direct="" quotes.="" accurate="" use="" of="" apa6="" for="" in-text="" citations="" &="" reference="" list.="" 5="" marks="" a="" good="" attempt="" at="" including="" an="" appropriate="" number="" of="" relevant="" and="" credible="" references.="" a="" good="" attempt="" at="" seamlessly="" integrating="" them="" into="" the="" text.="" good="" use="" of="" apa6="" for="" in-text="" citations="" &="" reference="" list.="" 4="" marks="" inclusion="" of="" an="" appropriate="" number="" of="" references="" but="" includes="" some="" that="" are="" not="" peer-reviewed="" or="" uses="" lecture="" notes.="" shows="" reasonable="" attempt="" to="" integrate="" literature="" with="" mostly="" adequate="" paraphrasing.="" good="" use="" of="" apa6="" for="" in-text="" citations="" &="" reference="" list.="" 3="" marks="" poor="" use="" of="" research="" literature="" by="" including="" most="" that="" are="" not="" peer-reviewed="" or="" uses="" lecture.="" poor="" integration="" of="" literature="" with="" poor="" paraphrasing="" or="" overuse="" of="" quotes.="" poor="" use="" of="" apa6="" for="" in-text="" citations="" &="" reference="" list.="" 2="" marks="" uses="" no-="" credible="" references="" throughout="" paper="" e.g.="" wikipedia,="" better="" health="" channel="" or="" uses="" all="" lecture="" notes.="" incorrect="" or="" missing="" integration="" of="" literature="" with="" poor="" paraphrasing="" or="" overuse="" of="" quotes.="" does="" not="" adhere="" to="" apa6="" format.="" 1="" mark="" total="" marks="50" mark="" for="" this="" assignment:="" 50="">