Acute Care Across the Lifespan NUR2203 Assignment 1 Marking Rubric

Acute Care Across the Lifespan | NUR2203 Assignment 1 | Marking Rubric

CRITERIA Introduction

Conclusion Highly relevant comprehensive introduction

Defines topic and includes a comprehensive introduction to the essay

Excellent synthesis of information from assignment that clearly ties highly relevant main points together.

Well-structured, concise reflection on importance of findings. Well-developed introduction

Defines the topic and includes an introduction to the essay

Quality synthesis of information from assignment that clearly ties relevant main points together.

Well-structured, concise reflection on importance of findings. Effective attempt of writing introduction that outlines essay

Above average synthesis of information from assignment clearly ties main points together.

Concise reflection demonstrates importance of findings. An attempt made to provide an introduction, however appeared unclear.

The topic is simply defined.

Demonstration of synthesis from assignment evident with some points from assignment discussed.

Importance of findings indicated. Inadequate and/or poor introduction.

Minimal/no evidence of an overview of the essay.

Inappropriate or absent conclusion.

Conclusion includes new material.

Referenced material in conclusion.

MARKS (15) 4.25-5 3-4 2.5 2 0-1

Critical Skills: Prioritising of major concepts of care Excellent reasoning in prioritising of concepts arising from the case study

Prioritised plan of care is highly synthesised and well-structured, with a very clear and coherent synthesis of the clinical data and supported with multiple literature sources

Excellently justifies judgments and reasons for decisions / courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals / expected outcomes / evidence)

Very logical / clear / succinct progression of concepts / ideas demonstrated / presents as a unified whole

Excellent analysis, well prioritised care detailed and succinctly communicated

Good reasoning in prioritising concepts arising from the case study with one omission

Prioritised plan of care is well synthesised and structured, with a clear and coherent synthesis of the clinical data and supported with multiple literature sources

Clearly justifies judgments and reasons for decisions / courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals / expected outcomes / evidence)

Good logical / clear / succinct progression of concepts / ideas demonstrated / presents as a unified whole

Good analysis, well prioritised care detailed and succinctly communicated

Reasoning in prioritising concepts arising from the case study has been partially addressed with some major omissions

Prioritised plan of care is synthesised and structured, with some demonstration of synthesis of the clinical data and supported with some literature sources

Justifies judgments and reasons for decisions / courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals / expected outcomes / evidence) satisfactorily

Some logical progression of concepts / ideas however further development / clarity needed.

Analysis of the case evident with some prioritised care demonstrated and at times well communicated

Reasoning in prioritising concepts arising from the case study has been attempted, but has omitted more relevant priorities

Prioritised plan of care is provided but with minimal synthesis of the clinical data and an unclear structure with minimal reference to literature sources

Judgments and reasons for decisions / courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals / expected outcomes / evidence) are inadequately justified

Limited logical progression of concepts / ideas however further development / clarity needed.

Minimal analysis of the case evident. Care is not well prioritised, or clearly communicated

Clinical reasoning and synthesis of concepts arising from the case study is minimal or absent

Prioritised plan of care is not synthesised or structured coherently. There is limited or no reference to literature sources

No judgment and reasons for decisions / courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals / expected outcomes / evidence) demonstrated

No / lack of logical progression of concepts underpinning case study.

No analysis evident e.g. lack of priority development in actions/ interventions / approach to dealing with deterioration

MARKS (15) 13.25-15 10.5-13 7.5-10 4-7 0-3.5

Content analysis:

Knowledge and understanding, nursing interventions /rationales Evaluation of the case demonstrates depth of understanding of pathophysiology and prioritisation of nursing interventions that could be actioned in practice

Excellent breadth and depth of actions / clear / succinct in approach, priorities well define

Highly articulate rationales succinctly related to the nursing interventions and nursing actions very well detailed

The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA/ surgical procedure are critically discussed demonstrating excellent understanding with rationales fully explained.

Excellent sources used to support actions / interventions quality (evidenced based) & demonstrate depth and breadth of reading. Quality research sources – contextual to the case study

Discharge planning very clear / succinct, detailed Evaluation of the case demonstrates understanding of the pathophysiology and some prioritisation of nursing interventions that could be actioned in practice

Good breadth of nursing actions: including assessment / monitoring / interventions included, evidence of prioritisation of actions appropriate to the case study

Good rationale included / relates to the intervention / action chosen and well detailed

The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA / surgical procedure are well explored and logically presented with rationales that are satisfactorily explained.

Very good sources used to demonstrate depth of understanding e.g. some use of evidenced based papers mostly contextual to the case scenario

Discharge planning clear and succinct Evaluation of the case is sometimes clear and there is some understanding of pathophysiology with some interventions that could be actioned in practice

Clear nursing actions: including assessment / monitoring / interventions included some prioritisation of actions mostly appropriate to the case study

Rationales for the nursing interventions and the implications for practice are outlined however further rationales could be provided

The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA/surgical procedure are explored with some depth and sometimes well explained

Fair breadth of sources used demonstrate understanding e.g. some use of evidenced based research with some contextual to the case scenario

Discharge planning included however broad and requires more detail

Evaluation provides a narrative to the reader outlining minimal understanding of pathophysiology and or formulation of relevant nursing interventions that could be actioned in practice.

Some nursing actions including: assessment / ongoing monitoring / interventions included however priorities are not well defined

Rationales included however explanation not clear or not focused / specific enough to the action/ intervention

The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA/surgical procedure are minimally explored and some confusion evident.

Minimal breadth of sources utilised / lacks depth e.g. mainly text / with minimal use of evidenced based journal articles

Satisfactory discharge planning, could be more specific at times

Evaluation of the case is not clear and concise to the reader with no or limited suggested nursing interventions that could be actioned in practice

Nursing actions including: assessment /monitoring / interventions minimal / not evident / inadequately prioritised

Rationales are limited, vague or absent

The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA / surgical procedure is not dealt with and / or are confused and not clear.

No / inadequate / limited literature sources used to support work presented e.g. over 7 years old and lack of evidenced based research e.g. uses mainly texts

No / minimal discharge planning included, vague / too broad

MARKS (5) 13.25-15 10.5-13 7.5-10 4-7 0-3.5

Academic Writing: structure, APA referencing expression /grammar Word limit: Adhered to word limit

Expression

High standard of academic presentation. Expressed ideas clearly, concisely & fluently

Very few/no spelling or grammatical errors

Structure

Well-constructed paragraphs

Main points linked to the question

Presentation is extremely appealing and engaging

Referencing

Correctly cited sources both within text & reference list. No/limited mistakes in referencing format Word limit: Adhered to word limit +/- 10% Expression

Sound academic structure and presentation

Expressed ideas clearly and concisely, thoughts expressed clearly

Very few spelling or grammatical errors

Structure

Well-constructed paragraphs, clearly expressed & linked main points

Presentation is appealing and engaging

Referencing

References to literature are good Word limit: Adhered to word limit +/- 10% Expression

Expressed ideas clearly, however not concisely & fluently, thoughts not clearly articulated

Some spelling and grammatical errors

Structure

Provided paragraphs with main points however not clearly expressed

Presentation is pleasing and mostly engaging

Referencing

References to literature are satisfactory Word limit: Adhered to word limit (+/-10%

Expression

Limited clarity of expression, vague or narrative only

Errors in spelling & grammar

Structure

Provided paragraphs but either main points were inappropriate or they were not linked key content areas.

Presentation is somewhat pleasing and engaging

Referencing

Reference to literature is present but not strong Word limit: Not adhered to

Expression

Used incorrect terminology

Numerous mistakes in spelling and/or grammar

Structure

No or limited structure

Presentation does not answer the question and is not engaging

Referencing

Literature not appropriate or insufficient

Incorrect referencing

4.25-5 3-4 2.5 2 0-1

Marker Comments:

FINAL MARK:

/40