Hi there,
I want to know the price and discounts. My budget is very very low for this assignment i can pay only $30-$35. If that suits u please let me know asap. I do want to get D ot HD . But not sure if you can make it that cheap?Thank you
2804NRS Human Pathophysiology and Pharmacology 1 A2 Written Assignment – Concept map assignment 1 2804NRS Human Pathophysiology and Pharmacology 1 A2 Written Assignment: Concept map assignment Concept map + 750 words written section Weighting: 30% Due Date: 5pm, 10th May 2021 Aim: The aim of this assessment is to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your critical thinking skills, your capacity to differentiate a normal from abnormal patient presentation and to identify appropriate, evidence-based, diagnostic investigations and treatment modalities associated with an assigned case-study. This assessment item will assess: Learning Outcome 4: Apply knowledge of the pathophysiology of disorders of the nervous, immune and musculoskeletal systems to solve clinical problems. Learning Outcome 3: Apply knowledge of microbiology to selected infectious diseases Relate the clinical manifestations and diagnostic findings of health deviations to the underlying pathophysiology of disease states. Learning Outcome 5: Select diagnostic tests, physical assessment techniques and treatment modalities (especially pharmacotherapeutics) that are appropriate to the disorders. Instructions: For this task you will create a single page (using PowerPoint or Microsoft Word) colour coded concept map and provide a 750-word written explanation, demonstrating analysis of a case-study scenario that will be provided at the start of your course. Your concept map must include: • An interpretation of ALL the patient risk factors (from the case-study scenario) and a demonstration of how these risk factors link and relate to the diagnosed disease/disorders’ aetiology, using evidence-based literature. • A step-by-step pathophysiological sequence between the diagnosed disease/disorders’ aetiology and ALL the patient’s clinical manifestations (from the case-study scenario), using evidence-based literature. • From your analysis and interpretation of the evidence-based research, identify the appropriate pharmacological approach and treatment modalities for the patient’s diagnosis (accurately linking these diagnostic investigations and treatments to appropriate points within your concept map). 2804NRS Human Pathophysiology and Pharmacology 1 A2 Written Assignment – Concept map assignment 2 In your 750-word written explanation: • Explain how ALL the patient’s risk factors (from the case-study scenario) are linked to the diagnosed disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological process/s. • Explain how the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiology manifests to produce ALL of the patient’s clinical manifestations (from the case-study scenario). • Using evidence-based literature, justify the pharmacological approach and treatment modalities listed in the concept map in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the diagnosed disease/disorder. 2804NRS Human Pathophysiology and Pharmacology 1 A2 Written Assignment – Concept map assignment 3 Other elements: • Word limit of 750 words needs to be strictly adhered to. The word limit for an assessment item includes in text citations and quotations. The word limit DOES NOT include the reference list. Please note the marker will cease marking your submitted work once they have reached 750 words. • Always refer to the Griffith Health Writing and Referencing Guide. Ensure your assignment format strictly adheres to these guidelines. • Ensure that you use scholarly literature1 (digitized readings, research articles, relevant Government reports and textbooks) that has been published within the last ten [10] years (between 2011 – 2021 (inclusive). • Use the APA7 referencing style. • You may use headings to organize your written section • Use academic language2 throughout. • Refer to the marking rubric when writing your assignment. This will assist you in calculating the weightings of the sections for your assignment. • Submit your assignment via Turnitin as per the instructions on your Learning@Griffith course site. [Submit in the ‘FINAL Written Essay’ assessment tab. • Please ensure you receive a turnitin receipt (take a screen shot) after submitting your assignment and please check you have uploaded the correct assessment into the correct folder. 1 Scholarly or peer-reviewed journal articles are written by scholars or professionals who are experts in their field, as opposed to literature such as magazine articles, which reflect the taste of the general public and are meant as entertainment. 2 Everyday language is predominately subjective. It is mainly used to express opinions based on personal preference or belief rather than evidence. Written academic English is formal. It avoids colloquialisms and slang, which may be subjective to local and social variations. Formal language is more precise and stable, and therefore more suitable for the expression of complex ideas and the development of reasoned argumentation https://sites.google.com/a/griffith.edu.au/griffith-health-writing-and-referencing-guide/ https://sites.google.com/a/griffith.edu.au/griffith-health-writing-and-referencing-guide/apa-referencing-guidelines 2804NRS Human Pathophysiology and Pharmacology 1 A2 Written Assignment – Concept map assignment 4 2804NRS Human Pathophysiology and Pharmacology 1 A2 Written Assignment: Concept map assignment Concept Map Section A s s e s s a b le E le m e n ts EXEMPLARY Exceptionally high quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. ACCOMPLISHED High quality performance or standard of learning achievement. DEVELOPING Satisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. BEGINNING Unsatisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. T O T A L M A R K Criterion One An interpretation of the three patient’s risk factors (from the case-study scenario) and a demonstration of how these risk factors link and relate to the diagnosed disease/disorder’s aetiology in the concept map. Exceptionally high standard as evidenced by an accurate interpretation of the three patient’s risk factors. Clear links between the three risk factors and diagnosed disease/disorder’s aetiology is evident in the concept map. High quality standard as evidenced by an accurate interpretation of most of the patient risk factors. Clear links between most of the risk factors and diagnosed disease/disorder’s aetiology is evident in the concept map. Satisfactory standard as evidenced by an adequate interpretation of some of the patient risk factors. Some links between the risk factors and diagnosed disease/disorder’s aetiology is evident in the concept map. Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by an inaccurate or absent interpretation of the patient risk factors. Links between the risk factors and diagnosed disease/disorder’s aetiology are not clearly evident in the concept map. /6 Mark allocation 6-5.5 5-4 3.5-2.5 <2 criterion="" two="" a="" step="" by="" step="" pathophysiological="" sequence="" between="" the="" diagnosed="" disease/disorder’s="" aetiology="" and="" all="" the="" patient’s="" clinical="" manifestations="" (from="" the="" case-study="" scenario)="" in="" the="" concept="" map.="" exceptionally="" high="" standard="" as="" evidenced="" by="" a="" logical="" step="" by="" step="" pathophysiological="" sequence="" between="" the="" diagnosed="" disease/disorder’s="" aetiology="" and="" the="" patient’s="" clinical="" manifestations="" clearly="" evident="" in="" the="" concept="" map.="" high="" quality="" standard="" as="" evidenced="" by="" a="" sound="" step="" by="" step="" pathophysiological="" sequence="" between="" the="" diagnosed="" disease/disorder’s="" aetiology="" and="" the="" patient’s="" clinical="" manifestations="" evident="" in="" the="" concept="" map.="" satisfactory="" standard="" as="" evidenced="" by="" an="" inconsistent="" step="" by="" step="" pathophysiological="" sequence="" between="" the="" diagnosed="" disease/disorder’s="" aetiology="" and="" the="" patient’s="" clinical="" manifestations="" evident="" in="" the="" concept="" map.="" unsatisfactory="" standard="" as="" evidenced="" by="" an="" inaccurate="" or="" absent="" step="" by="" step="" pathophysiological="" sequence="" between="" the="" diagnosed="" disease/disorder’s="" aetiology="" and="" the="" patient’s="" clinical="" manifestations.="" 6="" mark="" allocation="" 6-5.5="" 5="" -4="" 3.5-2.5=""><2 2804nrs human pathophysiology and pharmacology 1 a2 written assignment – concept map assignment 5 a s s e s s a b le e le m e n ts exemplary exceptionally high quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. accomplished high quality performance or standard of learning achievement. developing satisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. beginning unsatisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. t o t a l m a r k criterion three an interpretation of the five patient’s clinical manifestations (from the case-study scenario) and a demonstration of how these clinical manifestations link with the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological sequence in the concept map. exceptionally high standard as evidenced by an accurate interpretation of the five patient’s clinical manifestations. clear links between the five clinical manifestations and the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological sequence in the concept map. high quality standard as evidenced by an accurate interpretation of most of the patient’s clinical manifestations. clear links between most of the clinical manifestations and the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological sequence are evident in the concept map. satisfactory standard as evidenced by an adequate interpretation of some of the patient’s clinical manifestations. some links between the clinical manifestations and the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological sequence are evident in the concept map. unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by an inaccurate or absent interpretation of the patient’s clinical manifestations. links between the clinical manifestations and the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological sequence are not clearly evident in the concept map. /10 mark allocation 10 – 9 8.5 – 6.5 6 – 4.5 4 – 1 criterion four identify the appropriate pharmacological approach and treatment modalities for the patient’s diagnosis (accurately linking these treatments to appropriate points within your concept map). exceptionally high standard as evidenced by an accurate identification of the appropriate pharmacological approach and treatment modalities for the patient diagnosis, with all links clearly evident in the concept map. high quality standard as evidenced by an accurate identification of the appropriate pharmacological approach and treatment modalities for the patient diagnosis, with most links evident in the concept map. satisfactory standard as evidenced by an accurate identification of the appropriate pharmacological approach and treatment modalities for the patient diagnosis, with some links evident in the concept map. unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by inaccurate or absent identification of the appropriate pharmacological approach and treatment modalities for the patient diagnosis. links between the treatment modalities and the patient diagnosis are not clearly evident in the concept map. /9 mark allocation 9 – 7.5 7 –5.5 5 – 3.5 3 – 1 criterion five identify the appropriate diagnostic investigations for the patient’s diagnosis (accurately linking 2804nrs="" human="" pathophysiology="" and="" pharmacology="" 1="" a2="" written="" assignment="" –="" concept="" map="" assignment="" 5="" a="" s="" s="" e="" s="" s="" a="" b="" le="" e="" le="" m="" e="" n="" ts="" exemplary="" exceptionally="" high="" quality="" of="" performance="" or="" standard="" of="" learning="" achievement.="" accomplished="" high="" quality="" performance="" or="" standard="" of="" learning="" achievement.="" developing="" satisfactory="" quality="" of="" performance="" or="" standard="" of="" learning="" achievement.="" beginning="" unsatisfactory="" quality="" of="" performance="" or="" standard="" of="" learning="" achievement.="" t="" o="" t="" a="" l="" m="" a="" r="" k="" criterion="" three="" an="" interpretation="" of="" the="" five="" patient’s="" clinical="" manifestations="" (from="" the="" case-study="" scenario)="" and="" a="" demonstration="" of="" how="" these="" clinical="" manifestations="" link="" with="" the="" disease’s/disorder’s="" pathophysiological="" sequence="" in="" the="" concept="" map.="" exceptionally="" high="" standard="" as="" evidenced="" by="" an="" accurate="" interpretation="" of="" the="" five="" patient’s="" clinical="" manifestations.="" clear="" links="" between="" the="" five="" clinical="" manifestations="" and="" the="" disease’s/disorder’s="" pathophysiological="" sequence="" in="" the="" concept="" map.="" high="" quality="" standard="" as="" evidenced="" by="" an="" accurate="" interpretation="" of="" most="" of="" the="" patient’s="" clinical="" manifestations.="" clear="" links="" between="" most="" of="" the="" clinical="" manifestations="" and="" the="" disease’s/disorder’s="" pathophysiological="" sequence="" are="" evident="" in="" the="" concept="" map.="" satisfactory="" standard="" as="" evidenced="" by="" an="" adequate="" interpretation="" of="" some="" of="" the="" patient’s="" clinical="" manifestations.="" some="" links="" between="" the="" clinical="" manifestations="" and="" the="" disease’s/disorder’s="" pathophysiological="" sequence="" are="" evident="" in="" the="" concept="" map.="" unsatisfactory="" standard="" as="" evidenced="" by="" an="" inaccurate="" or="" absent="" interpretation="" of="" the="" patient’s="" clinical="" manifestations.="" links="" between="" the="" clinical="" manifestations="" and="" the="" disease’s/disorder’s="" pathophysiological="" sequence="" are="" not="" clearly="" evident="" in="" the="" concept="" map.="" 10="" mark="" allocation="" 10="" –="" 9="" 8.5="" –="" 6.5="" 6="" –="" 4.5="" 4="" –="" 1="" criterion="" four="" identify="" the="" appropriate="" pharmacological="" approach="" and="" treatment="" modalities="" for="" the="" patient’s="" diagnosis="" (accurately="" linking="" these="" treatments="" to="" appropriate="" points="" within="" your="" concept="" map).="" exceptionally="" high="" standard="" as="" evidenced="" by="" an="" accurate="" identification="" of="" the="" appropriate="" pharmacological="" approach="" and="" treatment="" modalities="" for="" the="" patient="" diagnosis,="" with="" all="" links="" clearly="" evident="" in="" the="" concept="" map.="" high="" quality="" standard="" as="" evidenced="" by="" an="" accurate="" identification="" of="" the="" appropriate="" pharmacological="" approach="" and="" treatment="" modalities="" for="" the="" patient="" diagnosis,="" with="" most="" links="" evident="" in="" the="" concept="" map.="" satisfactory="" standard="" as="" evidenced="" by="" an="" accurate="" identification="" of="" the="" appropriate="" pharmacological="" approach="" and="" treatment="" modalities="" for="" the="" patient="" diagnosis,="" with="" some="" links="" evident="" in="" the="" concept="" map.="" unsatisfactory="" standard="" as="" evidenced="" by="" inaccurate="" or="" absent="" identification="" of="" the="" appropriate="" pharmacological="" approach="" and="" treatment="" modalities="" for="" the="" patient="" diagnosis.="" links="" between="" the="" treatment="" modalities="" and="" the="" patient="" diagnosis="" are="" not="" clearly="" evident="" in="" the="" concept="" map.="" 9="" mark="" allocation="" 9="" –="" 7.5="" 7="" –5.5="" 5="" –="" 3.5="" 3="" –="" 1="" criterion="" five="" identify="" the="" appropriate="" diagnostic="" investigations="" for="" the="" patient’s="" diagnosis="" (accurately="">